PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 24 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Skye Bridge

Pete Wishart: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls on the Skye bridge.

Alistair Darling: There have been no recent discussions with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls because, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, all issues relating to the administration of the Skye bridge fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.

Pete Wishart: I thank the combined Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland for that answer. May I congratulate him on acquiring the poisoned chalice that is the post of Secretary of State for Scotland? We look forward with great interest to seeing how his job-share arrangements with Lord Falconer work out.
	The Secretary of State will know that there is a great question mark over the legality of the collection of tolls on the Skye Bridge, as the assignation order that allows that collection is neither signed nor dated. Does he share my concern about that and, following the saga of the botched private-finance initiative—which this House initiated—does he agree that the collection of tolls for the bridge should be abolished immediately?

Alistair Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his congratulations, which I am sure were heartfelt. Two poisoned chalices are probably better than one. I am well aware of the long drawn-out saga of the Skye bridge, but it is a matter that is entirely for the Scottish Executive and Parliament, and it would therefore be quite wrong of me to offer any opinion or give them any advice. It is a matter for them.

Patrick Cormack: The proof of the chalice will be in the drinking. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have regular discussions about that and other matters with the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Alistair Darling: I have no intention of discussing with the Scottish Executive matters that are entirely within their province. As I have said over the past few days, devolution has changed this country's constitution dramatically. With regard to the post of Scottish Secretary, the hon. Gentleman—who I know prides himself on his knowledge of constitutional matters—might be interested in the following quotation. Indeed, it might be of interest to the whole House:
	"Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
	That comes from the Conservative party manifesto at the last election.

Tam Dalyell: Are not situations likely to arise in which my right hon. Friend may have to go to himself and tell himself that he has no case?

Alistair Darling: No. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have made a habit of not talking to myself for the past 49 and a half years. If I am spared, as my mother would say, I intend to continue that practice.

School Buses

Adam Price: What recent assessment he has made of the safety of school buses in England and Wales.

Tony McNulty: There is no specific category of school bus in UK regulations. Any bus, coach or minibus may be used for dedicated school-to-home transport. In that context, therefore, it is imperative that we keep assessing and researching all aspects of the safety of all of those forms of transport.

Adam Price: I thank the Minister for that reply, which bears out what many hon. Members already know—that the regulations governing the transportation of live cattle are more stringent than those governing the transportation of children to and from school. Will the Minister undertake to review, for instance, the 50-year-old rules that allow three children to be placed in seats designed for two? The same rules permit up to 22 children to stand in a bus, even when the journey takes in a motorway. Are not those both examples of yet more accidents waiting to happen?

Tony McNulty: It is entirely unlike the nationalists to make cheap points about something as important as child safety. A range of matters is under ongoing consideration. The point about live animals and children is not accurate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Special yellow school buses are being used in various pilot schemes in England and Wales. They have operational features such as dedicated drivers, allocated seats and timetables for pick-ups. There has been exhaustive research into the three-for-two regulations, which are on the way out anyway under the post-1998 regulations. The matter is taken very seriously: the assessment of and research into safety for children on buses are of paramount importance in the Department.

Roger Casale: My hon. Friend will be aware that children with special educational needs very often are transported between home and school by minicab. There have been problems, including in my area, with securing the right Criminal Records Bureau checks on both drivers and escorts. Will my hon. Friend seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Children to address that issue, and to see how we can increase protection for that most vulnerable group of children?

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Between the greater regulation of private minicabs in London and the discussions that I shall happily undertake with the new Minister for Children, I hope that we can resolve the situation, but it goes wider than travel for special needs children.

Bypass (Worthing and Lancing)

Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on his practice in relation to meeting delegations from Worthing and Adur to discuss the need for a bypass around Worthing and Lancing.

David Jamieson: We have recently revisited our policy of meeting delegations while considering multi-modal study recommendations. Where there are issues of particular significance, we have decided that we should listen to the views of delegations.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased to hear it. As the Minister well knows, the thorny problem of the Worthing bypass stretches back about 30 years, and congestion on the A27, exacerbated by the further house building being forced on the area, is acting as a brake on business investment. Why is it, therefore, that he refused to see a delegation from the West Sussex economic forum earlier in the year, and that in April he refused to see a delegation of local businesses headed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), yet recently he has apparently seen delegations from a number of environmental groups opposed to any road building in the area? Is not that double standards, and will he agree to meet proper delegations, representative of Worthing and the desperate need for a bypass in our area?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not unwilling to meet him, because I did so last year on another matter related to his constituency. Our view was that such meetings could have led to some frustration; as he will appreciate, Ministers are somewhat constrained on such occasions because we could not hold discussions that were seen to pre-empt the Government's formal response to any study. If he will accept that during such meetings Ministers would be very much in listening mode, I should be happy to meet a delegation and to hear his views about the bypass for Worthing and Lancing, the merits of which were certainly never recognised by previous Conservative Governments.

London Airports (Regional Services)

David Stewart: What plans he has to secure access to (a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow for regional air services.

Alistair Darling: The issue of access to London airports for regional services will be addressed in the air transport White Paper, which, as the House will know, I plan to publish before the end of the year.

David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the major lack of capacity at both Heathrow and Gatwick, and that regional air services are most at risk? Does he share my view that future aviation strategy must include a mix of public service obligations, specific slot allocations and regional-only runways?

Alistair Darling: As I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, PSOs should be granted sparingly and only where they are justified. At present, there are a limited number of PSOs on loss-making routes, including those serving some of the islands in the west of Scotland. In relation to his constituency, he will be aware that there are four flights a day from Inverness to Gatwick and that a service to Luton has recently been introduced. Of course, if services from different parts of the country were withdrawn, the Government would have to consider that situation, but it would not be a good idea for us to change our policy and to start granting PSOs on the chance that a problem might arise, as the inevitable result would be that airlines would conclude that the Government were willing to pay for something that they were willing to do commercially. I have no intention of doing that.

Richard Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that any further expansion at Gatwick by, say, building a second runway means breaking a legally binding agreement?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when the High Court decided that the Government were wrong to exclude Gatwick, I made a statement to the House, on 28 November last year, in which I said that the reason the Government had not made proposals for a second runway at Gatwick was the long-standing agreement between the council and the then British Airports Authority, which precluded development before 2019. The High Court held that we were wrong in making that decision and that we had to consult on the basis that there could be development both before 2019 and afterwards. Subsequently, we extended the consultation process to the whole country, including proposals for Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman must know.
	The general point that we must all face up to, and which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) a few moments ago, is that there is no doubt that, on any view, the south-east airports are under severe pressure. That means that we will have to take some difficult decisions. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) is well aware, most of us can probably agree that something needs to be done, but there is an awful tendency to suggest that it ought to be done somewhere else.

Brian H Donohoe: Surely, given the earlier question about Inverness and the withdrawal of the service to Heathrow, there is an overwhelming case for the extension of runways and for new runways. Heathrow must be given that option sooner rather than later, with runways designated solely for regional use.

Alistair Darling: I am not sure about the latter point, but I agree that we need to consider how we meet the pressures that the London and south-east airports face in particular. That is why the Government are conducting a very extensive consultation, which finishes at the end of this month. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that we cannot allow a period of uncertainty to continue too much longer beyond then, which is why I intend to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's strategic direction for airport development over the next 30 years; and I will do so by the end of this year.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware of the strategic role that the British Midland flight from Teesside to Heathrow plays as a lifeline for businesses in the north of England. Will he ensure that that flight is guaranteed, not just through the air transport consultation paper, but through his slot allocation policy? What mechanism and channel does he intend to use to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on air transport capacity in Scotland?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady has clearly been working all night to produce such a contrived question, but not a very good one if I may say so. On her substantive point, the BMI flight from Teesside to London is an example of a very good regional service—it helps Teesside, and the position is similar to the services from Inverness and from Plymouth, which, as the hon. Lady will know, are currently under discussion because British Airways is withdrawing them. Of course, if a region makes a request to us about a flight, we will consider it, but it would be a mistake, as some countries have done, to start to designate PSOs in advance even though a problem may never arise. I should have thought that the hon. Lady agreed that the best possible option is to base such flights on commercial propositions, because that is a much better way to ensure that they last in the longer term. I find it hard to believe it, but perhaps the Conservatives now advocate wholesale subsidies where none are required.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of bird strikes that would occur if an airport were created at Cliffe would make it impossible to operate and far too dangerous? Given that it is a non-starter, can he confirm whether Cliffe is now well and truly off the agenda?

Alistair Darling: I understand the position that my hon. Friend advocates, but I have made it very clear that the Government will take the decisions in relation to the whole consultation and airport development in the UK at the same time. It would be quite wrong of us to start taking piecemeal decisions, as that would soon lead to great difficulties and, I have not the slightest doubt, to rich pickings for m'learned friends in the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's position, but he will have to wait until the end of the year, when we publish our White Paper setting out the strategic direction that we think necessary for the next 20 to 30 years.

Multi-modal Studies

Andrew Lansley: What representations he has received about the implementation of first-wave multi-modal studies.

Alistair Darling: We have received representations on a number of issues raised by those studies, including, of course, implementation.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State should be aware that today is the last day to make further objections to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough structure plan, where an essential issue is the location of a large new settlement in my constituency, next to Longstanton in the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor—the subject of a first-wave multi-modal study. To inform that debate, will the Secretary of State tell us today whether the Government intend to provide parallel roads and access roads alongside the A14 by 2006, as well as the financial support sought by Cambridgeshire county council for a rapid transit system from St. Ives to Cambridge?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last year, we published the outcome of the Cambridgeshire-Huntingdon multi-modal study, which included substantial upgrading and improvement to the A14 and various junctions, as well as a guided bus route, which Cambridgeshire county council promoted and is doing further work on. All those proposals are being worked up at the moment. I hope that they will be developed, consulted on and put in place as quickly as possible. He will know that area pretty well, as he represents part of it, and I have not the slightest doubt that we need to ensure that the transport infrastructure is adequate to deal with existing problems and the transport pressures that we know will come from any extension in the future.

Anne Campbell: Given that the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study proposed a rapid transit system between Huntingdon and Cambridge to cope with the level of traffic at present and to take pressure off the A14, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the 8,000 additional homes at Oakington will put further pressure on that transport infrastructure? As well as looking at the feasibility of the rapid transit system, will he look at the adequacy of what is currently proposed?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly understandable point. In this country generally, many parts of the transport infrastructure are not adequate for the pressures that we have today. If we are to have any significant development, we need to make sure that the transport infrastructure is in place to ensure that people can move around, whether on rapid transit systems, roads or railways. She is therefore right about that. The multi-modal studies, and particularly the one to which she refers, allow for substantial investment—some of which has been needed for 20 to 30 years—which will make a difference. Clearly, in respect of additional pressures that may arise because of planning decisions, we need to make sure that we can plan ahead so that people can move around in a satisfactory way.

Andrew Stunell: The Secretary of State will recall that, in relation to the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, his ministerial colleague agreed to meet an all-party deputation at the end of last year. Unfortunately, his other ministerial colleague, who is no longer with him, felt that his diary was too full to receive such a deputation. Will he now agree to reinstate that visit?

Alistair Darling: Just so that people understand this, I am quite clear that if any Member of the House wishes to see a member of my ministerial team, unless there are very good reasons for not doing so, we will agree to meet. One of the reasons for being a Member of Parliament is to have such access to Ministers. Clearly, Members will weigh in the balance how often they need to see Ministers, but I want to make it clear that it is perfectly possible to see us. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, before he left for Northern Ireland, mentioned something about a meeting—[Laughter.] He seemed to me like a man with a great weight off his shoulders as he sped off to Northern Ireland. All I can say is that one of my colleagues on the Front Bench—I do not know which unfortunate one it will be yet—will meet the hon. Gentleman in due course.

David Clelland: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the multi-modal study for Tyne and Wear, particularly as it relates to the A1 western bypass around Gateshead and Newcastle, one of the country's worst congested roads? Will he undertake to look at that urgently and, in particular, to bring forward comprehensive proposals for a solution to the problem? Will he also welcome the initiative by Nexus, the passenger transport executive, in its campaign to increase the use of public transport, particularly the Tyne and Wear metro system?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of both proposals, which are part of one of the studies that I hope to deal with before the summer recess. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a statement about six or seven multi-modal studies that need to be dealt with. I am aware of the issues in relation to the roads and the metro. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to give commitments in respect of any of those things at the moment, but I am aware of them, and I am aware of the pressures that Newcastle and Gateshead, like a number of other areas in this country, face.

Tim Collins: In the light of the multi-modal studies, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that Britain's transport system is currently getting better or worse?

Alistair Darling: Many aspects of the transport system are getting better. To give one example, the west coast main line, one of the main arterial routes in this country, was last upgraded in the 1960s and 1970s. Successive Governments, both Labour and Tory, did not face up to the fact that they would have to renew and improve that line, with the result that, at the moment, it has severe problems with reliability. I am glad to report to the House that yesterday, as many Members will have seen, the Strategic Rail Authority confirmed a £9 billion investment in the west coast main line, which will allow, for example, up to four trains an hour to run to Birmingham, a two-hour running time to Manchester and an hour off the journey time to Glasgow. That is one example of how investment and better management will improve our railways, and the same can be said for roads. It will take time, but we are putting in the money and the management. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman's party is against both of those.

Tim Collins: Do not the multi-modal studies in fact show that motorway congestion has grown by between 50 and 250 per cent. since this Government came to office? Do not they in fact show that, in 2001, not a single inch of tarmac was added to the national road network anywhere? Do not they in fact show that future railway carriage orders are set to drop by 90 per cent. over the next eight years? Do not they in fact show, in terms of the announcements made yesterday, that rail services are being axed up and down the country? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the multi-modal studies confirm that passengers, motorists and taxpayers are paying more and more for a worse and worse service? Does he not recognise that the CBI says that it is deeply disappointed with this performance and that Transport 2000 says that the whole system is coming grinding to a halt?
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House today whether he can confirm that there is an absolute prohibition on any new rail services anywhere on the network? Will he tell us whether he can characterise the number of additional rail services that will now be axed? Does not he believe that all these problems indicate that we need a full-time, not part-time, Secretary of State for Transport?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point, I can tell him that, in September this year, Britain's first new major railway for 100 years will open. The channel tunnel rail link is an example of public and private money going in to improve the railways.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a series of other questions. In relation to railway services, yes it is true that, at the beginning of this year, for example, and faced with hopeless reliability problems on the Virgin cross-country route, 180 out of a daily total of 18,000 trains a day were taken out of service. Let me tell the House the result. That timetable change came in three weeks ago, and reliability on the Virgin cross-country route went from 67 per cent. to 78 per cent. in just three weeks. I make no apology for the fact that the SRA is doing precisely what should have happened years ago—putting in place a timetable that actually works. The SRA is dealing with the consequences of a botched privatisation implemented by the Conservative party.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about congestion. More cars are using the roads, but that is because the economy is growing. Some 1.5 million more people are in work than there were seven years ago—all thanks to a Labour Government. The difference is this: had we stuck to the road-building and transport plans that the Tories left us with, congestion on our trunk roads would have grown by 50 to 60 per cent. As a result of the investment that is taking place, we will reduce that rate of growth to between 1 and 15 per cent. It is an example of investment making up for decades of underinvestment, because the Tories slashed the road programme when they were in office.
	Whatever the difficulties we have in the transport system just now, there is nobody I know outside the Conservative party arguing for a 20 per cent. cut in spending. That is not the way to improve the railways, so when the hon. Gentleman next gets to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he might at least have a stab at developing a transport policy, something that he has conspicuously failed to do in the past 12 months.

Bus Transport

Helen Jackson: What action he is planning to take to increase use of bus transport.

Tony McNulty: We have established the Bus Partnership Forum to bring together bus operators and local authorities to identify how we can work together to increase bus use. As part of the 10 year transport plan review, we are also reviewing the subsidies that we provide to buses—totalling more than a £1 billion a year—so that they are better focused on achieving increased bus use.

Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I warmly welcome him to his new job.
	I accept what my hon. Friend says. When there is a joint partnership between local authorities, bus operators and the Government, we get increased numbers of passengers on buses because of more frequent services, cheap fares and the good management of bus priority schemes. In Sheffield, the new Labour authority is extremely keen to provide just that and to take a different approach to the appalling one taken to public transport by the previous Liberal Democrat administration in the city. Will the Minister assure us that he will work with Members of Parliament for Sheffield and the local authority to ensure that unnecessary competition does not stand in—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Tony McNulty: I know that my hon. Friend met my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) last week to discuss the partnership and that there were concerns about service charge withdrawals and fare increases. I am more than happy to stay in touch with Sheffield MPs to ensure that the partnership works. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that good visionary council leadership must be party to the partnership in addition to the private sector, and happily Sheffield now has that.

Nicholas Winterton: In Macclesfield, the borough and county councils are developing a purpose-built new bus station, which I warmly welcome. Does the Minister accept that many villages around Macclesfield and in my constituency have an inadequate bus service? That is not helped by the fact that because of resources, the county council is having to reduce the frequency of bus services in many parts of my constituency, even if the services are already inadequate. Will the Minister examine that matter, and if I wish to discuss it with him, will he be happy to meet me?

Tony McNulty: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on his new bus station, and I take his point about outlying areas and continuing difficulties surrounding rural buses. When we meet I shall, at least in part, give him a history lesson on the plight of rural buses under the past Conservative Government.

Geraldine Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware of the congestion caused by parents dropping off their children at schools from cars. He will also know that increased use of school buses could ease that congestion. Will he update the House on progress made between the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport on pilot schemes to encourage schoolchildren to use school buses?

Tony McNulty: As I said in answer to an earlier question, a range of yellow bus pilot schemes are being conducted in England and Wales and, to be perfectly honest, we are still assessing their impact. I take my hon. Friend's comments to heart. We are not necessarily against the school run but it has proved time and again to be a pinch point for congestion, not least in many suburban areas. The issue is worth considering and the American model is but one way in which we might go forward. Many other environmental and traffic-calming schemes around schools, in a comprehensive fashion, should also be part of the process, as should the walking-bus scheme.

Jim Dobbin: I would dearly love to see greater use of bus transport by the public, but the services in my area provided by First buses fall way below the standards expected. Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to regulation of the buses?

Tony McNulty: Although I am aware of what is going on in Rochdale in other capacities, I am not fully up to speed—no pun intended—on its bus provision. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), a visionary local authority and a bus company that comes to the table with the desire to improve and work with the local community are required. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about Rochdale in that regard to find out whether we can satisfy the situation.

John Bercow: By 2010, what is the expected percentage increase of bus usage in rural areas?

Tony McNulty: Another clever little question straight out of "Top of the Form". As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the short answer is, "I don't know", which is the third time that I have said that to him from the Dispatch Box. I am more than happy to share a cup of tea with him to discuss the matter further. Although he sadly did not take up that offer on the past two occasions, I hope that he does this time.

Rail Freight

Alan Simpson: What action he has taken to promote the use of rail services for the delivery of (a) mail and (b) other freight; and if he will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The carriage of mail by rail is a commercial issue between the Royal Mail and its contractors. In May, the Strategic Rail Authority published its first "Freight Progress Report" explaining achievements to date in increasing rail's overall share of freight traffic and its future plans. Rail freight is now at its highest rate since 1980. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

Alan Simpson: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new ministerial position. I am sure that it is a little early for him to want to take full credit for the Government's policy of encouraging the shift of freight transport from road to rail, which has the support of the House and the country. What discussions has his Department held with Royal Mail on what the public regard as the catastrophically irresponsible decision to shift its freight from rail to road? What environmental impact assessment has been made on that decision?

Kim Howells: I have had no such discussions. In the half-hour or so of briefing that I had this morning when it was impressed on me that I was no longer dealing with alcohol licensing, but with vehicle licensing I was not informed of that, and I shall certainly try and find out about it for my hon. Friend.
	I heard the same message as my hon. Friend: that Royal Mail is taking seriously the environmental impact of the move from rail to road. We will see about that and test it. It has also expressed the view that it is not disappointed with the performance of English Welsh and Scottish Railway. The issue is about cost. As my hon. Friend knows, Royal Mail recently experienced some major changes. I have no doubt that it has considered its cost base and efficiency and has made serious decisions about how it will operate in future. However, I take his message on board and shall try to discover what discussions have taken place.

Don Foster: I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to his new post. However, I must tell him that the information he gave to the House a few moments ago was incorrect. In the calendar year of 2002, the amount of freight on rail sadly declined for the first time in a number of years. That will not be helped by Royal Mail's disastrous decision.
	Given that the Minister said that Royal Mail will look at the environmental impact, will he explain why he also said that that factor should not be taken into consideration despite the Government's guidance to Postcomm that environmental matters must be taken into account? It is not just a commercial decision. As environmental considerations are important, will he at least agree, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) suggested, to knock heads together to sort the problem out and to keep the mail on rail?

Kim Howells: Those are essentially two private companies that are involved in commercial negotiations. I do not intend to interfere in any way in those negotiations. I am, however, interested in the environmental and economic impacts. There is no question about it; they are very important. But I stress that I am also worried about the customers of Royal Mail. Its future in terms of employment and the service that we all receive from it depends on Royal Mail being the most efficient company in what is rapidly becoming a competitive environment. I will give that matter careful consideration and maintain some degree of judgment, which I hope will please the hon. Gentleman.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that in the long run it will not be in the interests of Royal Mail to add vast numbers of lorries to our roads? It must know that. When he starts his inquiries, will he look carefully at the disadvantages that people suffer when they negotiate rail contracts? There are extra problems for rail freight. We should be sympathetic and see what we can do to help.

Kim Howells: Yes, I am aware that there has been a long-running vociferous debate on how we compare freight that is carried by road with freight that is carried by rail. I shall bear my hon. Friend's advice in mind.

Christopher Chope: I, too, warmly congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on taking on such important responsibilities. Does he accept that he is not correct in regarding the issue as purely commercial? English Welsh and Scottish Railway has written to a number of hon. Members stating:
	"Royal Mail is unable to reclaim VAT as a state-owned entity, while it incurs no VAT on internally provided road services. The resultant 17.5 per cent. cost differential is a principal price issue".
	Will the Minister accept that that is a responsibility for the Government? Does he agree that it is just another example of a failure to have joined-up government? Does he accept the headline in The Independent today, which says: "Derailed: How transport has become Labour's most spectacular failure"?

Kim Howells: The Independent front page is graphic, dramatic and arresting. I am not sure about the content; I have not had a look at it yet. I shall judge that some other time. It looks a bit conceptual to me.
	It is astonishing to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows that I have great regard for him, but he was one of the arch-privatisers of the 1980s. Whether in a passive or actual role, there was no doubt that he was an architect of what turned out to be one of the most botched privatisations in history. He should not be churlish about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done an enormous amount during the short time in which he has been in his job to try to repair the damage done by that botched privatisation. I am certain that we will have a much better rail system very shortly.

Kali Mountford: The Royal Mail has made a commercial decision, but we are living in an age of corporate social responsibility. Is it not important to have regard for a key plank of Government policy and encourage freight by rail, not just because of the impact on the environment but because of the impact on the industry as a whole? Two industries are working against one another, but should not a decision be taken in the public interest instead of in the commercial interest?

Kim Howells: I do not regard the two industries as working against each other. The amount of freight carried on the railways is an important part of the total freight carried in this country, but it is a very small percentage. We must get that into perspective. Anything that we can do to relieve congestion is extremely important, but on matters such as corporate social responsibility the Royal Mail has had a very good record until now, as indeed did the Post Office. I am sure that those complex issues have been taken into consideration, but they are not easy to resolve, given the commercial arrangement between two important companies such as the Royal Mail and EWS. However, I am quite certain that their respective boards will have discussed those things.

John Redwood: Why cannot a nationalised post service do a deal with a Government-regulated industry through the Strategic Rail Authority and a largely nationalised track system under Network Rail to get what we all want—an environmentally sensible answer to carrying the post? Does that not show that nationalisation is bad for the environment, and that the wheels have fallen off the Government's freight transport policy?

Kim Howells: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is a little out of date on the nature of those companies, which are organisations that operate privately and draw up their own plans. I remember being in the Chamber on many occasions when he argued that one of the great problems with nationalised industry, which he has just raised again, is the fact that it does not have the flexibility and the imagination to be able to respond to changing circumstances. Those companies are taking seriously the difficult problem of moving something as vital as mail around the country, and are trying to work out how the best infrastructure and operating system can be achieved. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome such assessments as a way of providing the best possible value for customers who, in the end, are the people who count. The deliverers are, of course, important, but if the country does not have a good Royal Mail service we are in big trouble.

British Transport Police

Kate Hoey: What plans he has to increase the resourcing to the British Transport police to cope with increased demands for policing of football.

Tony McNulty: The resources available to the British Transport police are a matter for the BTP committee, which oversees the force and sets its budget. The rail industry, including London Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies, are responsible for providing the necessary funding, not central Government.

Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend. However, is he aware of the enormous pull on transport police time during a normal weekend of football matches? Does he share my view that football is the only sport that requires such a massive amount of policing, both by the BTP and other police? Does he not think that it is time that football should have to ring-fence a tiny percentage of the huge amount of money that it gets from Sky and other television companies and give it to the BTP and other police for policing a sport that can no longer be watched peacefully?

Tony McNulty: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that on some Saturdays football increases the lot and load of the British Transport police. For example, since the closure of Wembley stadium, there have been 36 matches for which central funding has been available for Home Office forces, but not the BTP. A survey on 4 January 2003 estimated that the additional cost for the BTP of policing matches on that day was £142,000. The Government maintain that it is the responsibility of the industry to meet those costs, and how it does so is up to it. However, I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.

David Heath: Is it not the case that almost more than for any territorial force, the key objectives for the British Transport police must be deterrence and reassurance, and that that is achieved by visibility of patrols on trains and the tube? Should not that be a prime objective of the British Transport police authority, and should not the resources be available to make sure that there are enough officers to be visible on our trains and tube?

Tony McNulty: Whatever other changes have been made over the past couple of weeks, for the British Transport police the world is as it was on 1 April 2003, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the BTP with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) when he was in the Department for Transport. My right hon. Friend said then:
	"The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdictions, including the prevention and detection of terrorism."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 789.]
	That remains the case and is an important part of their role.

Maritime Transport

Alan Reid: What plans he has to seek changes to European Union regulations regarding state aid to maritime transport services; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The UK supports the European Commission in its aim of clarifying the interpretation of the current legislation. To this end, the European Commission, on its own initiative, presented proposed revisions of Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport to member states.

Alan Reid: Will the Minister try to persuade our EU partners of the need for flexibility in the regulations? The Scottish Executive are having difficulty implementing the regulations as they stand. For example, there are endless consultations on the future of the Dunoon-Gourock route, and while that is going on, Dunoon pier is in danger of falling into the sea through lack of repairs. There were consultations and tender documents drawn up for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route, but so far they have not borne fruit. Will the Minister please go to Brussels and try to get some flexibility and common sense into the regulations?

David Jamieson: The Government recognise the importance of those ferry services to the islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission will shortly publish the revised guidelines regarding state aid for maritime transport. That will give the flexibility that he wants, and benefit some of the smaller services in particular. However, the implementation of those policies will be for the Scottish Executive. Although Scottish nationalism has taken a bit of a hit in recent months, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that those matters should be taken on centrally by the Westminster Government.

Mobile Phones

Linda Gilroy: What action he is taking to tackle road safety issues arising from drivers using mobile phones.

David Jamieson: We consulted last year on a proposal to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. We plan to make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible.

Linda Gilroy: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents says that one in four drivers admit to using a mobile phone or texting while driving. May I urge him to bring those proposals forward as a matter of urgency? In the mean time, will he join me in congratulating the police in Plymouth and Devon on the campaign that they ran last month, using existing powers to crack down on inappropriate phone use? Does he agree with Plymouth's road safety officer, PC Duncan Russell, that "missing a call won't kill you, but having an accident may"?

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. She will be pleased to know that we share her concerns. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on the matter. She said that one quarter of people admitted to using a mobile phone at some time for making a call or texting. We know that at any one time, one in 40 people are using a mobile phone while they are driving, and putting themselves and others at risk. I applaud the efforts being made by Devon and Cornwall police using the current law. My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long before the Government make an announcement on the matter, which is of great public concern.

Low-cost Air Travel

John Randall: If he will make a statement on the change in low-cost air (a) passenger numbers and (b) traffic movements in the last five years.

Alistair Darling: Passengers on low-cost carrier flights through UK airports, both domestic and international, have increased substantially in recent years, from 7.7 million passengers in 1998 to 35.4 million last year. Air traffic movements increased over the same period from 86,000 in 1998 to 308,000 in 2002.

John Randall: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does it not indicate to him that some of the projected growth in air movements and air traffic might mean that the issue comes down to the small regional airports associated with low-cost flights, rather than the major airports?

Alistair Darling: Up to a point. Interestingly, although there has been a dramatic growth in the low-cost no-frills airlines, many of whose services are point-to-point between regional airports either in this country or continental Europe, there is still a growth in travel on conventional scheduled airlines. What we have to do is reach a judgment on whether this recent rapid development of low-cost airlines is likely to change the whole pattern of air travel in future or whether it will add to the pressures on the conventional hub-and-spoke operation at Heathrow, for example. We will address that issue during discussions prior to the publication of the White Paper at the end of the year, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a phenomenal increase in low-cost airlines in the past five years in respect of airports that many people had thought until now were almost doomed to closure. That is one of the issues that we will need to take into account.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Sunset Clauses

Vincent Cable: What his policy is on the use of sunset clauses in subordinate legislation; how many such clauses have been introduced since June 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: Revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments was published on 28 January 2003, advising officials to consider time-limiting or sunsetting regulations and encouraging use of those tools where appropriate. While the Cabinet Office actively promotes the better regulation agenda, it does not collate the specific information centrally. My Department has introduced no legislation containing sunset clauses.

Vincent Cable: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion in the Cabinet Office, but I suggest to him that whatever he did to earn it, it probably has very little to do with his less than stellar performance in the field of deregulation. Does he recall that, of the seven major achievements touted to business last year in respect of deregulation, one involved lifting restrictions on the sale of electric kettle descalers while another involved liberalising the sale of methylated spirits on Sundays? Would he not make faster progress if all new legislation incorporated a sunset clause from the outset?

Douglas Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically warm words of congratulation. I shall make two points on the substantive issues that he raised. First, the sunset clause is only one of the tools available to advance the regulatory reform agenda that this Government are pursuing. Secondly, I would rather focus on the recent comments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said:
	"The U.K. is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD, it has already made major improvements and has planned more."
	That is just the latest external verification of the strength of the regulatory reform agenda that has not only been pursued by my predecessors, but is now being carried forward by the Cabinet Office.

E-Government

Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on progress towards introducing e-government.

Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to extend e-government services.

Douglas Alexander: The latest electronic service delivery survey shows that 63 per cent. of services were e-enabled at the end of 2002, and Departments have forecast that they are on track for the 2005 target. We recently enhanced that target to ensure that certain key services achieve high levels of use.

Andrew Robathan: That is encouraging in so far as it goes, but has the Minister read the Accenture report on e-government, which states that, although the United Kingdom
	"has been a strong e-Government performer",
	it
	"looks to have stalled somewhat of late"?
	The report points out that
	"the biggest concern for the government is the low number of citizens using online government services."
	Indeed, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has pointed out that only one in 10 UK citizens have used online Government services, compared with half the Canadian population. How does the Minister see this issue as going forward?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Initially, we were driving forward our commitment to ensure that all Government services are e-enabled. That continues to be the agenda that we advance towards 2005. However, for exactly the reasons that he raised, we have also committed ourselves to enhance that target and ensure that we drive up usage levels. We are specifically considering the Canadian example. Canada has a single citizen portal, which is one of the key reasons why its level of usage is significantly higher than in many other countries. In that regard, I hope that we can make proposals in due course that allow us to harness best practice from abroad as we enhance our agenda for e-government.

Paul Flynn: Although we have not reached the level of the world leader, Canada, the growth in e-government has been commendable in terms of the increase in usage and the innovation that has taken place. However, is it not disappointing that the two groups who could probably gain the most from using e-government are not using it? Only one in 10 of the elderly and one in six of the poorest families have access to the internet. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that that increases?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. We have established 6,000 UK Online centres across the country, particularly serving low-income and deprived communities where access to the internet might otherwise not be available. In recent weeks, the e-envoy's office has been taking forward a nationwide campaign that is specifically targeted at the kind of groups that my hon. Friend identifies. I am glad to say that in my constituency of Paisley, South, a burgeoning number of silver surfers are taking advantage of public access to the internet, which previously would not have been available.
	Finally, to give a sense of scale, over the coming year the Government are investing about £6 billion in information and communications technology. We are determined to ensure that that investment serves not just one section of the community, but precisely those sections that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Richard Allan: The Minister referred to the Government's target of putting all services online by 2005. Can he confirm whether he expects to be judged on that target at the beginning or the end of 2005? Will he ensure that any reports that are produced as part of that process give full information on any problems or failures in meeting the target, as those are likely to be important in learning for future development?

Douglas Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, e-government, not least because of the scale of public investment involved, is not only reported on by the Government through the work of the e-envoy, but has, appropriately, been the subject of a number of reports of this House. There is little to fear in terms of the transparency of the work that we will undertake in relation to the 2005 targets.
	To update the House, in 2002–03, 64,000 people applied for a passport online and 160,000 people applied to university online. I am therefore confident that we continue to make progress. The 2005 target has been vital in persuading Departments that we are serious about getting every single service online that we can. However, I am not complacent, and the work in government continues.

Andrew Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is no longer technology, but the political will to join up Departments to make things work? It is still the case, for example, that a constituent dealing with a death will have to deal with up to a dozen or more Departments. When are the Government going to ensure that there is a genuine one-stop shop to deal with key life events?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am corresponding on the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). It reflects the fact that this technology should not be seen solely as a technological fix for some of the challenges that we encounter, but rather as a platform on which we can develop genuinely citizen-centred services. The speech that the Prime Minister is making today at the Fabian Society reflects the far broader agenda, of which ICT is only one part, of modernising the public services that were so ravaged by a lack of investment by the Conservative party.

Philip Hammond: Referring again to the Minister's target of 2005 for making all public services, including local government services, accessible online, will he acknowledge that there is a problem of definition, and that it is not sufficient for services merely to be nominally available online? Can he confirm that the criterion that he will use for measuring success in achieving the 2005 target is a significant degree of interactivity on departmental and local authority websites?

Douglas Alexander: To use the technological jargon, we are moving towards a multi-channel future. I am pleased to say that in meeting the 2005 target, the use of contact centres plays an important role in the interactivity that the hon. Gentleman identifies. In my constituency, and in constituencies across the country, people are already interacting with local government, not only through e-mail, but by using contact centres. Interactivity is vital: that is why we have specifically targeted key services to drive up usage.

Public Appointments

Ian Gibson: What steps are being taken to encourage members of the public to take up public appointments.

Douglas Alexander: The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to public appointments. My Department launched a new public appointments vacancy website on 27 March. It provides vacancy details—there are currently more than 100—and information on how to apply.

Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a unique journey from Paisley to the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope that he has found where it is. Not everybody has access to the internet, and that creates a problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that many groups in our society—for example, young people and the disabled—do not take up public appointments? Does he further agree that a reason for that is that the old lags on committees often patronise the new people and tell them, "That was very interesting. Now sit back and have another cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit"?

Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of congratulation on my promotion. Let me return the favour and say that he is unique in the House in having made the journey from playing for Paisley's distinguished football team, St. Mirren, to being a Norwich Member of Parliament.
	My hon. Friend made an important point about lack of access to the internet. It is precisely the reason why the Cabinet Office produced a newsletter for groups who do not have access. However, his broader point is also important. We are determined that we should have public appointments that genuinely reflect modern Britain rather than an outdated notion of the great and the good. We need to move that agenda forward expeditiously.

Graham Brady: We want to encourage appointments as magistrates, among other public appointments, especially in the Duchy of Lancaster. Will the Minister confirm that in January, the Department vetoed the appointment of 10 magistrates to the Trafford bench on the ground of their political beliefs or views? Does he agree that giving the impression that people will be judged on their views rather than their merit and ability is no way to encourage them to apply for public appointments?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. A candidate's political views neither qualify nor disqualify them for appointment. In the interests of balance, it is a requirement that the composition of the bench should broadly reflect the voting pattern for the area, as evidenced by the last two general elections. However, the priority must be to ensure the effective working of the judicial system. That is our goal.

Points of Order

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you will have had the chance to look at today's Hansard. The first page of a new volume of Hansard usually contains a full list of the Government. That was last done on 3 June, when volume 406 began. The first page contained details of
	"Her Majesty's Government . . . formed by"
	the Prime Minister in
	"June 2001".
	When I went to the Vote Office today to ask for a paper copy of a Government list, I was told that former list was the only one available.
	Today's Hansard, which is a new volume, begins:
	"The Parliamentary Debates . . . in the first Session of the fifty-third Parliament of the United Kingdom . . . [which opened on 13 June 2001].
	It continues with Question Time and does not provide a Government list. There appears to be some confusion about who is doing what job, and about Ministers' seniority in the jobs. The confusion is compounded by the Order Paper. According to the Vote Office, we have not been officially informed about the change of Secretary of State for Scotland, yet according to the Order Paper,
	"Right Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland"
	will give evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on
	"Scotland Office Departmental Report 2003".
	That is a remarkable conversion, given that the right hon. Gentleman has just answered questions on transport matters in the House.
	Perhaps you can tell us what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Why cannot Hansard today give us the full Government list in the way that it normally would?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that, when Hansard went to press last night, a full list of the Government had not been received.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You very kindly indicated to the House yesterday that you had made representations to the Prime Minister and that you would accept representations from us on any future recommendations that you might make to him. The House would like to know which Minister is responsible for which function in any one Department, because until we know who is responsible for what, we do not know whom to write to.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister tomorrow? In my absence, the Chairman of Ways and Means will look after things, and it is possible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might catch his eye, although I will not give any guarantees.

Keith Simpson: Further to the points of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), Mr. Speaker. We shall shortly have a debate on this matter, and I see that the Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench, is available. Would it perhaps be convenient for the House if he read out a list of Ministers and their responsibilities? This seems to be the perfect opportunity, and he has 10 minutes in which to go and consult with No. 10 and get a full list.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a revolutionary idea that Members of Parliament should know what they are doing? May I ask you to consider very carefully the replies that you give to the House, because if we are to know not only who is responsible for what but which individual Members are supposed to be doing what, should we not get into a most extraordinary situation—quite different from the one that we have had for the last 400 years?

Mr. Speaker: One thing is sure: I know my responsibility, which is to look after the business of the House. I shall therefore move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Older People's Rights Commissioner

David Taylor: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an older people's rights commissioner to promote and protect the human rights of older people, to make provision in respect of the recognition of such rights by public and private bodies, to assist older people in respect of such rights, to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner and for related purposes.
	There are 11 million people over pension age in the United Kingdom, including some 2.5 million people over the age of 80. While many older people live happy and fulfilling lives, some, sadly, face the most appalling abuses of their basic rights as human beings. It is for those people that I am advocating an older people's rights commissioner. The commissioner would have a broad remit to tackle the abuse of older people's rights wherever it occurred, and would ensure that older people were afforded the same rights as younger people in every aspect of life, from education and employment to transport and trade. In short, the commissioner would be a powerful advocate for the rights of older people, bringing to an end the tacit acceptance of abuse and neglect of those rights, which has become our national shame.
	The area of health and social care illustrates most starkly the need for a commissioner. The gross breaches of older people's rights that occur in this field were laid bare in the BBC series "Britain's Secret Shame". Those recent programmes told sorry tales of cruelty and the exploitation of vulnerable older people who were in need of loving and sensitive care. The programme's title said it all: the picture that it painted was shameful. This problem has also remained largely secret, hidden from our view as a nation. But it should not remain secret any longer.
	The programmes told the stories of older people whose treatment ranged from the careless and heartless to the systematically sadistic, and illustrated a culture of subtle and insidious neglect of the fundamental rights of older people as human beings. Let us take the case of Violet Townsend—known as Cissy—who was forced to move care homes because the local authority refused to meet the additional cost of £53 per week being demanded by the home. Despite Cissy's vulnerable state of health and her deep distress at the prospect of leaving her home, the local authority and the care provider failed to respond. Only five days after being forced to move homes, Cissy was dead. What a way to treat our most vulnerable citizens, who have a right to expect a safe old age.
	But that was far from the most shocking story revealed in the series. One programme told of a Liverpool care home resident who was found to have had all her fingernails pulled out by a supposed care assistant. That was more than incompetence or negligence. It was worse than abuse. It was torture.
	What is extraordinary is that abuses of that kind occur in a country that provides protection against such treatment. It is not that these older people do not have rights: they are covered by the same human rights legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998, that protects all of us. Older people have the same right to life, the same right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, the same right to a fair hearing, the same right to respect for private and family life, and the same right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They all—we all—have those rights, without discrimination on any grounds. Furthermore, the rights are supported by a structure of standards including the national service framework for older people and the Care Standards Act 2000.
	Those standards, however, do not always reflect a modern reality in which older people's rights are overlooked or violated with an alarming degree of impunity. We would never accept such treatment of our children, and cases of child abuse rightly provoke a sense of national outrage. So why, when faced with such treatment of our older people, have we remained silent for so long?
	Help the Aged has gathered devastating evidence of abuses of the basic rights of older people over many years. As with the cases in the BBC series, most of the examples have occurred in care settings, and the victims have been people at their most vulnerable. There is the case of an Eastbourne lady with Alzheimer's disease who was found at an inquest last year to have died of dehydration in a care home because no one had taken time to understand that she needed help in eating and drinking. There is the case of a London man with dementia who was taken off his life-preserving heart medication when he moved into a care home, despite instructions from his wife, only to die a few weeks later. That is an extreme example of neglect, shown to be even worse when we learn that it was not even thought necessary to hold an inquest. What of those people's right to life?
	There are numerous cases involving care home closures and care shortages. Some older people are forced into separation from families and even spouses by the rationing of care, with no regard being paid to their right to family life. Others, like Cissy Townsend, find that their health and indeed their lives are jeopardised by forced care home moves. At the weekend, the Daily Mail highlighted the case of 102-year-old Winifred Humphrey in Kent, given notice by a profiteering care sector.
	Yet more older people are forced to live in dire circumstances because of social services' failure to provide adequate care and assistance for them to have a decent life. One lady's mobility difficulties meant that she had to crawl up two flights of stairs to reach the bathroom, and social services were unable to visit to make an assessment for equipment or adaptations for several months. Where is the humanity in that? Surely no one could deny that such abuses need to end. Indeed, as I said earlier, they are illegal in this country. The British Institute of Human Rights, however, says that the Human Rights Act has not yet made a difference to the quality of care in residential homes. That is why we need to appoint an older people's rights commissioner to ensure that it does.
	Most of the older people whose rights are currently being neglected are vulnerable. Some suffer from dementia, some lack the necessary financial means, and all are liable to feel daunted by the idea of standing up for their rights in a society that appears happy to ignore them. Without a commissioner, it will still be the case that only a small number are brave enough to assert their rights—only a few individuals each year, taking on the system alone. Leaving challenges on the basis of human rights to the individual just will not work when it comes to dependent and powerless older people.
	It is telling that the vast majority of cases of abuse are raised by a family member or friend, not by the older person involved. Help the Aged has identified a range of reasons why older people are often not in a position to pursue their rights on an individual level. There may be physical reasons. Older people may be too ill or lack energy, to the extent that just getting through the day is challenging enough. Others, such as stroke victims, may have difficulties in communicating. Sometimes there are mental health reasons. About two thirds of older people in care settings suffer from moderate or severe dementia, which impairs their ability to challenge their treatment and to be believed when they do complain. Often the reasons are psychological: older people share with other victims of abuse emotional reactions of depression or shame. Occasionally, older people in residential care settings simply lack the privacy to make telephone calls or to speak to someone about sensitive issues. Many are not aware of their rights, or lack information about whom to contact. Perhaps most worryingly, some older people fear reaction or retribution if they speak out about abuse.
	The commissioner would play a real role in asserting older people's rights for them, working towards a society in which abuse of older people's rights is simply not tolerated, and away from a society in which the Christian commandment to honour our fathers and mothers is routinely ignored.
	I recognise that work is under way to determine which structures should support older people in relation to equal treatment and human rights. Yes, we are working steadily towards the establishment of a single equality body with a strong remit for tackling age discrimination not just in employment and training, but in the provision of goods and services. And yes, there are long-term plans to establish a robust and transparent human rights commission. An older people's rights commissioner could play an especially important role within such bodies when they are set up, working alongside, and shaping the actions of, human rights experts and equality experts. Such a commissioner could blaze a trail for the other commissioners on human rights, and could begin the process of making human rights count among some of the most vulnerable members of our society, so that they can grow old with dignity and without exposure to inhumane and degrading treatment.
	We must not mark time until the 2006 starting date for the proposed equality body. We must ensure that older people's rights, as enshrined in law, guidance and rhetoric, become a reality without further delay. There is no one to speak for many older and vulnerable people. They need a voice now; they need protection now; they need recognition now; they need an older person's rights commissioner now.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Harold Best, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. David Drew, Paul Flynn, Linda Gilroy, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Andy Reed and Mrs. Betty Williams.

Older People's Rights Commissioner

David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an older people's rights commissioner to promote and protect the human rights of older people; to make provision in respect of the recognition of such rights by public and private bodies; to assist older people in respect of such rights; to make provision for the powers and duties of the Commissioner; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 124]. Opposition Day

[9th Allotted Day]

Government Reshuffle

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Eric Forth: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the far-reaching constitutional implications of the changes to the machinery of Government announced in the Government reshuffle last week; deplores the total lack of consultation before the changes were announced and the confusion that has ensued since; is gravely concerned that the Prime Minister is abolishing the historic office of Lord Chancellor without any idea of what will take its place, and, in particular, how the independence of the judiciary is to be maintained; is unclear about the relationship between the spokesmen for Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons and the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who appears to have executive responsibility for the functions of the Scotland and Wales Offices; regrets that the Prime Minister clearly regards the jobs of the Secretary of State for Transport and Leader of the House as part-time; further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State who has no control over health policies in his own constituency, and whose constituents will not be affected by the decisions he takes as Secretary of State for Health; and calls on the Prime Minister not to proceed with his plans for change until he has properly consulted on them.
	I begin by welcoming the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) to his new position as part-time Leader of the House. I sincerely congratulate him on his marriage on Saturday, and wish him many years of happiness—and at least a few weeks as Leader of the House.
	Last Thursday, the Prime Minister's press office announced sweeping change to our constitution and our system of justice as a half-baked afterthought to the most botched and shambolic reshuffle in living memory. Since then, Mr. Speaker, as you are very well aware, the Prime Minister has not deigned to come to the House to explain what it all means. I suspect that he cannot explain because he does not know what it means, and he will not explain because I doubt whether he cares very much, either. But now he has left it to the poor old part-time Leader of the House to pick up the pieces.
	As a result of what the Prime Minister cobbled together between his trips overseas, the separate and distinct voices of Scotland and Wales in the Cabinet have been utterly confused and downgraded; a Scottish Member of Parliament is in charge of health in England, imposing on England a foundation hospital system that was rejected in Scotland, yet no English Member is allowed a say on health policy in Scotland. Another Scottish Member is responsible for transport in England while defending the interests of Scotland, yet is apparently reporting to an unelected English Minister in another place. Last Thursday—[Interruption.] Indeed, that Minister also happens to be a Scot, but I shall not hold it against him.

Gavin Strang: I would like to help the right hon. Gentleman. With the Scottish Parliament in its second term, a case can be made, once we have tied up the legal niceties—[Interruption.]—I use the term "niceties" in its scientific sense. When we have disposed of some of the remaining functions—some to the Scottish Executive in Edinburgh, some to the appropriate Department in Whitehall—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to make the Secretary of State for Scotland redundant in due course?

Eric Forth: After that, the right hon. Gentleman deserves a position as the Prime Minister's spokesman on the matter.
	Last Thursday, the West Lothian question became the Westminster question—a question about the competence of the Prime Minister, his openness and honesty with his own Cabinet colleagues, and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. We now have chaos, confusion and conflicts of interest everywhere. However, Downing street's first task was to explain whether the Lord Chancellor still existed and, if not, who or what would perform the vacant role.
	The timetable of the sorry saga went something like this. On Thursday, the Government announced that a Department for Constitutional Affairs would replace the Lord Chancellor's Department. Lord Irvine, the Prime Minister's former boss, who objected to the changes, was sacked, and Lord Falconer, his former flatmate, was appointed to the new role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—not Lord Chancellor. As part of the changes, the post of Lord Chancellor was to be abolished and his responsibilities as head of the English judiciary, Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House of Lords reallocated.
	According to the Downing street website on Thursday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that in the transitional period, Lord Falconer would not fulfil either the judicial function of Lord Chancellor or the role of Speaker in the House of Lords. On Friday, however, Lord Falconer had to be dragged to the Woolsack to assume his place there as Speaker, and he was forced to admit that he was, after all, the Lord Chancellor. Then, on Saturday, Lord Falconer said:
	"I will continue to be the Lord Chancellor and exercise his powers until such time as statutory arrangements can be made to replace it".
	That was always made clear. He then added graciously:
	"As long as the House of Lords wish the Lord Chancellor to sit on the Woolsack, I will continue to do that."
	We must pay tribute to him for that.
	There was then a need to explain plans for a supreme court and the Government's commitment to consult widely on their proposals. On Thursday, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a supreme court to replace the Law Lords. The role of the Lord Chancellor as head of the English judiciary would be "reallocated". A judicial appointments commission, an independent body to select new judges, would take over the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. Can the part-time Leader of the House tell us whether it will be six weeks after the Prime Minister's announcement of the creation of the new bodies before the consultation papers are published—or will it be more? Apparently, that was the timetable that Downing street produced.

Kevin Brennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise these words:
	"I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well and has, on occasion, been radically and robustly independent from both the Executive and the legislature".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]
	They are his own words from 1999 [Hon. Members: "Oh!"]. Does he recognise them?

Eric Forth: Yes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this subject is a matter of legitimate debate and that what should happen now is contingent on proposals for the other place. The difference in our positions is that we believe that this matter should be properly debated, that a Green Paper and a White Paper should be published, that full discussion should take place and decisions be taken in conjunction with the consideration of both Houses and the reform of the upper House. What we cannot have is the Prime Minister announcing the creation of a supreme court without any of those processes whatever taking place.

Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait many months for the Government's response, because the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform had various things to say about a supreme court. It is customary for the Government to respond to such a report within two months, which would take us to 29 June.

Eric Forth: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman believes that the Prime Minister's response is either appropriate or based on very much thought—I shall leave it for him to decide. However, let me quote what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is acknowledged as something of an expert on such matters, said on Friday:
	"If you are going to change 1,500 years of constitutional history, you do it carefully, you have a consultation, a white Paper and experts, and then finally you bring it before Parliament, because Parliament decides the way we are governed, not the Prime Minister on the back of an envelope in Downing Street. What we have here is a botch, which looks as though it has been put together in panic. It totally lacks coherence and clarity."
	On Sunday, speaking on "Breakfast with Frost", Lord Falconer himself said:
	"As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the effect of the announcement on Thursday is that we would have a Supreme Court but the detail of that has to be worked out after proper consultation."
	Meanwhile, the Government's claim that the proposed judicial appointments commission would make judicial appointments impartial was queried by Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, who said:
	"You can have an Appointments Commission which is independent of the executive, but nevertheless is tailor-made to produce an entirely different kind of judge who perhaps would be more acceptable to the Home Secretary".
	I wonder whether that is what the part-time Leader of the House meant by what he said in Tribune in 1984—[Hon. Members: "1984?"] I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman remembers what he said, but I am going to remind him. He said:
	"The next Labour Government should appoint only judges who have clear socialist or libertarian leanings."
	Let us now turn to the sad story of the fast-diminishing representation of the people of Scotland and Wales. On Thursday, the Downing Street press briefing read:
	"New arrangements will also be put in place for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. The Scotland and Wales Offices will henceforth be located within the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales."
	On Friday, the Downing street press briefing described the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) as
	"the Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland"
	and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) as
	"the Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales".
	The briefing went on to say, most helpfully, that the Prime Minister's official spokesman could not give
	"a precise breakdown of Alistair Darling's schedule and it would be wrong to do so, but . . . one of the reasons Alistair Darling was made Secretary of State for Scotland was that he was Scottish."
	Asked whether he was saying that
	"Alistair Darling, Peter Hain and Helen Liddell"
	did not have enough to do, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said:
	"in respect of Wales and Scotland, given the progress of time in relation to devolution . . . these were no longer full-time jobs, so they were being combined with other roles."
	When asked to whom the civil servants in the Scotland and Wales Offices would answer, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that they would come under a single permanent secretary, Sir Hayden Phillips, but would work for their respective Secretaries of State. Asked whether the permanent secretary would be answerable to Lord Falconer, the Prime Minister's spokesman said that he would.
	After all that, I think that we can all agree with the conclusion of Friday's Downing street press briefing that
	"some things had been a little hazy".
	However, that was not the view of the part-time Leader of the House, who told BBC Radio Wales on Friday:
	"The Wales Office is not being abolished, I stay as Secretary of State for Wales."
	He went on to say, in a rare moment of honesty:
	"I readily admit that in the comings and goings yesterday, this whole issue could have been communicated far more effectively from Downing Street."
	I hope that he will expand on that when he speaks.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend has just reminded us that the part-time Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the Wales Office still exists, but on today's Order Paper the Scotland Office is referred to as "the former Scotland Office".

Eric Forth: I am at a loss to explain that. I cannot help my hon. Friend, but perhaps the part-time Leader of the House will do so when he speaks.

Graham Allen: Before we get too deep into the knockabout, which we are all enjoying, can we be clear about the policy substance? From what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far, I understand that Conservative party policy is that they would be happy with both a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission. Is that the case, or will he confirm that—in the unlikely event of his being in government—he would abolish either or both of those institutions?

Eric Forth: I wish that we had some substance to discuss. My whole point is that we do not. The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question and our response is that these are very important matters. They are constitutional and judicial matters. They deserve the appropriate treatment. We say that they deserve thought, a Green Paper, a debate, consideration and consultation. Then Parliament, in both Houses, should determine the matter. That is our policy and that is the approach that we would take. If any Labour Members have a problem with that, they should tell us. I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will tell us if he has a problem with that approach when he speaks.

Richard Burden: rose—

Eric Forth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help us.

Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically coy. The question is simple. In principle, is he in favour of the institutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) described?

Eric Forth: The whole point is that these are not simple issues. They are complex issues relating to our constitution, which has served us so well for many centuries. If Labour Members think—as the Prime Minister obviously does—that these are simple issues to be worked out on the back of an envelope, that is the difference between us.

Graham Allen: The shadow Leader of the House said, rightly, that these are ultimately matters for Parliament, and I hope that we would all agree with that. However, he is speaking at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, so would he be kind enough to put on record the Opposition's policy on a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court? [Interruption.] I am glad that he is getting some advice from the Leader of the Opposition, but I ask him to clarify the Conservative party's policy for the record. If the Conservatives came to power, would they abolish a supreme court or a judicial appointments commission, or is this only a lot of hot air with great entertainment value?

Eric Forth: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a little way—

Graham Allen: What is your policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Eric Forth: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate that took place on the reform of the House of Lords. We set up a commission, we consulted, we took advice, we published some thoughts, we had debates and we then published our policy. That is the process in which we believe, as opposed to the Prime Minister, who believes in doing none of that. Our policy is to have mature discussions on these important issues, to consult and to debate.

Graham Allen: You don't know yet.

Eric Forth: I shall get the hon. Gentleman into Hansard by replying to his sedentary remark—that is how kind I am. He is correct: we do not know yet. That is the distinction between the Prime Minister and myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too noisy, Mr. Allen.

Eric Forth: On Saturday, Lord Falconer said:
	"Of course I am not their boss . . . There is still a Scottish Office, the officials work in my department, but politically those offices are led by Peter and Alistair, there is still a very strong voice in the Cabinet for Scotland and Wales".
	However, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)—who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, although we do not know that officially, because we have not had a list of the Government—said:
	"I am working for Alistair Darling as a junior minister in the Scotland Office which is part of the constitutional affairs department . . . A great deal of the day to day activity will be done by me anyway, Alistair and I have discussed that".
	As the Scotland Office website now reads:
	"This site is currently under redevelopment."

Nick Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position on a supreme court—which is that he does not know—but will he now clarify his party's position on Scotland? Will he abolish devolution or will he accept the scaling down that follows?

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will set our position out when she replies to the debate. We have accepted the settlement following the referendum in Scotland. We have accepted the role of the Scottish Parliament, but we also believe that there should be a Secretary of State for Scotland. The presence of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is living proof of that, and I hope that that is enough for the hon. Gentleman.
	Today's debate is about more than constitutional confusion—bad enough as that is.

Alex Salmond: Strangely, the shadow Leader of the House has not made enough of the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). In the Order Paper today, Mr. David Crawley is described as
	"Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."
	Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, says, may we conclude that the Scotland Office is a dead parrot?

Eric Forth: Or a dead macaw, perhaps. I defer to the hon. Gentleman in that he has pointed out that what is in today's Order Paper is the only official declaration that we have had, because we have no official list of the Government. Therefore, we are all in the dark about the position of various Departments and Ministers.
	The serious issue is the loss of, or reduction in, representation for the people of Wales and Scotland. It is about the loss of democratic accountability for the acts of this Government in regard to those vital parts of the United Kingdom. What are the roles of the Scottish Secretary, the Welsh Secretary and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? For example, does a Scottish Member with a concern go to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) or to the Lord Chancellor, as he is known for the time being? What happens if those two Secretaries of State disagree with each other? What happens if one Secretary of State gives a civil servant a different instruction from the other? Is the Scotland Office part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs as we were told on Thursday, or is it not, as we have been told since?

Gillian Shephard: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would happen if the part-time Leader of the House should choose to disagree with the part-time Secretary of State for Wales?

Eric Forth: Perhaps the bicephalous right hon. Gentleman could tell us that when he makes his own contribution—[Interruption.] Yes, I thought that that might tax some Labour Members. On a serious point, if the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) felt obliged to resign from a job as one Secretary of State, how can others be reasonably expected to do a job as two?

Kevin Brennan: Can the right hon. Gentleman remind us what arrangements were made in those areas by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the previous Leader of the Opposition? The shadow Secretary of State for Wales is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he can whisper in his ear and tell him what those arrangements were.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have in front of me a copy of his early-day motion. It reads:
	"this House believes that the Secretary of State for Wales performs a vital role in the government of the United Kingdom; and further believes that this office should be retained as an individual cabinet post as envisaged in the Government of Wales Act 1998."
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt whether Government Front-Bench Members are.
	Last week began with the Government saying no to a referendum on the new European constitution. The Government started this week with a pledge of referendums on regional assemblies. We began last week with the Government running away from a referendum on the destruction of the pound, but we ended it with them promising emergency legislation in another place to allow referendums on the use of fluoride in water.
	My final question concerns the role of the Secretary of State for Health—the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid)—and the West Lothian question. The absurdity of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment is that we have a Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish constituency telling us how to run the NHS in England, when he has no say over health policy in Scotland because the issue is devolved. The Father of the House is, as ever, in his place. Of this appointment, he said:
	"It is an extraordinary piece of casting to put a Scot in charge of the English health service. Dr. Reid has no say whatsoever in health matters pertaining to those who sent him to the Commons."
	That is a view from north of the border, and we respect it, but—lest it be thought that that is the only view on the matter—I shall also quote the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who said:
	"I am not happy that the health ministry, which is almost totally an English ministry, is headed up by a member of parliament representing a Scottish constituency."
	So two highly respected Labour Members—one from north of the border, and one from England—have both made the same point in their very individual ways.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he opposes a Scottish MP being the Secretary of State for Health. However, he also made it clear that in the next Conservative Government, a Conservative Member with an English seat would be Secretary of State for Scotland. That is a ridiculous position.

Eric Forth: Not at all. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my parliamentary neighbour, I say that we will win so many seats in Scotland that she will face severe competition for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.

Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: No. I must press on, as I am very conscious of the passage of time.
	The Secretary of State for Health will have the task of pushing through the House the Bill establishing foundation hospitals in England—the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—even though the proposal has been rejected by the Labour-run Scottish Assembly. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—a Scottish MP—said just before the 1992 general election, when he was shadow Health Secretary? He said:
	"Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: No. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read his early-day motion before he stands up again.
	The Prime Minister has been guilty of breathless arrogance and supreme incompetence. This is a time when our public services are in crisis and in dire need of real and radical reform, when one in four children leave our primary schools unable to read, write or count properly, when 30,000 children leave secondary school without a single GCSE, when there are still a million people on hospital waiting lists, and when 300,000 people feel obliged every year to pay for their own hospital treatment. Our pensions are in crisis and our roads are congested. The British people spend longer commuting to work than any other people in Europe, and one train in five are late. Gun crime is spiralling out of control—and what does the Prime Minister come up with? He decided that the country needed a shambolic reshuffle on which no one was consulted and which no one understands. He announced his plans, and then asks us to agree to them. The trouble is, which version does he want us to agree to—the Thursday night version, the Friday morning version, or the version given over the weekend?
	No wonder no one trusts what the Prime Minister says any more, that we do not know what to believe, or that he cannot deliver any more. I want to ask the part-time Leader of the House the following questions—

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: No. This is my peroration—as if the hon. Gentleman did not know. Obviously, I will have to give Labour Members a signal when I am perorating.
	Here are my questions to the part-time Leader of the House. Have the key decisions been taken on the role of the Lord Chancellor, on the creation and role of a supreme court and on a judicial appointments commission, or will there be genuine consultation and debate? Does anyone understand the roles and responsibilities of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to say nothing about those of the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? What about departmental Ministers and officials? For example, will the right hon. Gentleman say who is the Minister for Constitutional Affairs in the House of Commons?
	"The lesson of previous Parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity."
	Those are not my words, but the words of the present Prime Minister, spoken in 1996. How can we possibly have confidence in a Prime Minister who has obviously forgotten any lessons that he claimed to have learned, and who now tries to impose this shambles on our Parliament and our country? There needs to be consultation, debate, thought and care over such matters, as we are showing today. If the Government will not do it, we will.

Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment.

Hon. Members: The part-time Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services."
	Well, well, well. That was an exercise in Tory self-inflated cant, bombast and hypocrisy by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), cheered on by the grinning idiocy behind him. Even Comical Ali would have been proud of that performance. The right hon. Gentleman lashed out wildly, missing his target every time—except when he congratulated me on my wedding; then he was spot on, and I am very grateful for what he said.
	The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was interesting for one reason. It was all process, and no substance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Members are far too noisy. They must allow the Leader of the House to speak.

Hon. Members: The part-time Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: Why was the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst all process and no substance? It was because he is frightened of substance and of the fact that the reform and modernisation of our democratic system are popular and welcomed by people right across the country.

Julian Brazier: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. [Hon. Members: "The part-time Leader of the House."] The right hon. Gentleman just said that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was all process and no substance. What does he think that a constitution is about if it is not about process?

Peter Hain: That really was a devastating question. Every time this Labour Government propose a sensible constitutional reform, widely supported by public opinion in the country at large, the Tories oppose it and claim that the end of the world is nigh. The Opposition go on about procedure and process, and I shall deal with those claims later, but basically they are against change. The Opposition are stuck in the past, on the side of privilege and patronage. They are the same old Tories, the same old reactionaries: whatever the reform, they are against it.

Kevin Brennan: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the shadow Leader of the House refused to answer the question that I asked him about the policy of the previous Leader of the Opposition? In March 2001, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said the following about the post of Secretary of State for Wales:
	"Instead, the position, which is currently held by Paul Murphy, could be merged with roles such as Leader of the House in an effort to create 'smaller government'".
	Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was not willing to answer my question?

Peter Hain: I am going to remind the right hon. Gentleman about that in a moment.
	Whatever the reform, the Opposition are against it.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "Part-time."]—tell us how long the office of Lord Chancellor will exist?

Peter Hain: The original target was that the office would continue for about 18 months, but it is a matter for consultation—[Interruption.] The proposals are all about consultation. There will be consultation about the situation following the replacement of the Lord Chancellor, about the independent judicial commission, and about establishing the supreme court.
	The shadow Leader of the House made much of that issue; he said that there had been no consultation. Let us consider the major reorganisations conducted by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. The Department of Trade and the Department of Industry merged to form the Department of Trade and Industry—no consultation; the Department of Health and Social Security split into the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health—no consultation; the Department of Energy was abolished—no consultation; the Department of Employment was abolished—no consultation; and the post of Deputy Prime Minister was created and the post of President of the Board of Trade was reincarnated—no consultation.
	The Conservatives have been out of office for so long that they have forgotten how government works, so I shall remind them that in a reshuffle, naturally, decisions are announced on the day, but consultation on the detail follows—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: I shall give way in a moment, especially to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am always keen to give way to him—he is not a bad performer.
	Consultation will follow, in great detail, with everybody concerned.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. His is truly a chronic speech from a discredited Minister in a devalued Labour Government. Given that Opposition Members at least recognise that the constitution of this country is not a piece of putty to be moulded according to the passing whim of a Government but something that has evolved over generations and should be treated with respect, why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's fatal conceit is to imagine that their own internal and short-term machinations are either the same as, or more important than, the long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom?

Peter Hain: The long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom lie in having a reformed, modernised, efficient structure, widely supported across all shades of opinion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress before I take any more interventions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have more order in the House. Hon. Members are being unfair to the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I shall be happy to take interventions if I can make a bit of progress first.
	Whatever the reform, the Tories are against it. They wanted to keep hereditary peers. They were against the Human Rights Act 1998, and against a London Mayor and Assembly. Yesterday, they were against regional government for English regions that vote for it. They were against devolution for Scotland and Wales—"It would mean the break-up of Britain", they screamed.
	It was the Tories who nearly broke up Britain, with their arrogant centralism and their disastrous policies. Labour, through devolution, has saved the United Kingdom and neutered the separatists. Who would now want to abolish the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and go back to Tory direct rule? I challenge the Conservatives to campaign for a referendum on ditching devolution.

Graham Allen: My right hon. Friend is being excessively generous in saying that there should be 18 months or so before the post of Lord Chancellor is abolished. Is the explanation for the delay in enacting that policy that my right hon. Friend discovered from the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House that the Conservative party does not have a policy on the supreme court, the lord chancellorship or the judicial appointments commission? In fact, is my right hon. Friend giving the Conservatives long enough to devise a policy?

Peter Hain: That is a good question.
	On the time period, legislation is needed and consultation has to take place beforehand, and that will occur.

Angela Browning: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. Why was it announced, last Thursday evening, that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were to be abolished, yet on Friday morning it was announced that they would be retained? Did some key consultation take place between Thursday night and Friday morning? Will he answer those simple questions?

Peter Hain: I have before me the press statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday and I should be happy to read it all to the hon. Lady. It makes it clear that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales would remain and that the Scotland and Wales Offices would remain.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. He has just said that there will be a Lord Chancellor for an 18-month transition period, yet on Thursday the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that Lord Falconer would not fulfil the role or function of Lord Chancellor. Who exactly did he intend should fulfil that function?

Peter Hain: I am honoured that the Leader of the Opposition chose to intervene on a Minister who is well down the food chain and I welcome him to the debate. I shall quote from the statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday:
	"For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord Chancellor as necessary."
	That is absolutely clear.

Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that although the speech of the shadow Leader of the House was vacuous nonsense, it was very witty? At least it has united the Tories on one issue: they have realised their true potential as clowns. Of course, we already knew that.

Peter Hain: I could not agree more.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: I want to make some more progress and then I shall happily take other interventions.
	The truth is that devolution has been a success. One of its successes is that decisions in Scotland and Wales are being made closer to the people of Scotland and Wales, through the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. As a result, there are fewer decisions and fewer duties for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. That is self-evident. It is thus a perfectly reasonable step to combine their duties with other Cabinet posts, as we have done.
	The position is clear, as it has been since the reshuffle—as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others would know if they had bothered to find out the facts. As the Secretary of State for Wales, I am accountable to the House, as before, for Welsh business, and I represent Wales in Cabinet. My duties remain the same. My oversight of all primary legislation affecting Wales remains the same. The Wales Office remains open for business as usual and its staff serve me and my deputy, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), as before.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is accountable to the House for Scottish business, as before, and conducts it in Cabinet. As before, we each have an Under-Secretary in respect of Welsh and Scottish business, also accountable to the House. The only difference is that we combine those duties with our other Cabinet posts and the Scotland Office and Wales Office staff will come under the umbrella of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, giving them better career certainty and opportunity.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Over the past couple of years, he has said many times that the success of the devolution settlement will rely entirely on the partnership of him and his Under-Secretary in introducing legislation from the Welsh Assembly. That will now be extremely difficult. At what point did the Prime Minister or his office realise that to abolish the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales would be breaking the law, according to the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is completely confused about the situation. I have just carefully and patiently explained that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I continue to discharge our functions in exactly the same way as we did before Thursday. Furthermore, I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman and his party want to abolish both the post of Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office because they believe in independence for Wales, and that that would mean that a Secretary of State no longer had a function.

Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the Conservatives ever form a Government, they intend to introduce a rule that would prevent any Member representing a Scottish constituency from voting in this place on matters that apply specifically to England and Wales. That is a massive constitutional change on which they held no consultation, yet for 50 years the Conservatives not only tolerated but welcomed a situation whereby Northern Ireland had its own Parliament while continuing to send MPs to this place. Was not the reason for their pragmatism then the fact that Ulster Unionists accepted the Conservative Whip?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Nigel Evans: If what the part-time Leader of the House says about the positions of the Welsh Secretary and the Scottish Secretary is true and we should all have known that their roles would be merged, why did the Government say, in March 2003—just three months ago—in their response to the second report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which suggested such a merger, that the Prime Minister
	"has no plans to merge either the roles of the territorial Secretaries of State or their departments. Each territorial department is a discrete centre of excellence in the relevant settlement"?

Peter Hain: The roles have not merged. I am the Secretary of State for Wales, and there is a distinct Secretary of State for Scotland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly straightforward question; I am giving a perfectly straightforward answer. [Interruption.] Well, he may not understand that there is a separate Secretary of State for Scotland and a separate Secretary of State for Wales and that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office remain, with exactly the same staff, doing exactly the same duties. He obviously has no comprehension at all of the facts that stare him in the face.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On Thursday evening, a major announcement was made in my constituency that could have jeopardised several thousand jobs. I was privileged to be able to take that information to the Secretary of State for Wales that evening and to have it acted upon. There was no confusion, but there is confusion in the line of the motion that says
	"further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State"
	and so on. Does he suspect, as I do, that there is confusion about devolution among the Opposition?

Peter Hain: That was well put. The National Assembly for Wales runs the NHS in Wales—it has been devolved.

Eric Forth: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why item 11, Scottish Affairs, on today's Order Paper quite clearly says:
	"Witnesses: Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland"
	and goes on to refer to
	"Mr David Crawley, Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman explain who is responsible for that? [Interruption.] I will even give him a moment to read the prompting note that his officials have had to pass to him. Perhaps he can tell us whether the same official who gave that information to the custodians of the Order Paper is now giving him his further instructions.

Keith Simpson: It reads, "You're on your own."

Peter Hain: No, I have got some good company on this one. Of course, the reference is to a former House official, and the wording of the Order Paper was drawn up by the House authorities, rather than by the Government.
	The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive have both welcomed the new arrangements. At the weekend, the First Minister of Wales said in his inimitable way:
	"I don't think anybody who hasn't been on Planet Zog or exploring the Antarctic for the past three or four years thought that the jobs of Secretary of State for Wales and Scotland, as they were before 1999, were going to go on exactly the same as before into the great blue yonder once you had a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly."
	I am a generous man, so let me make one retraction. A moment ago, I said that the Conservative party had opposed all our constitutional reforms since 1997. That was deeply unfair, and I plead forgiveness and your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: "Wait for it."] Conservative Members better wait for it, because they will not like it. In fact, there is one reform that they have positively supported and, indeed, actively advocated—yes, merging the roles of Welsh Secretary and Scottish Secretary with other Departments. No one would have ever guessed from the peroration of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—from all that self-inflated, puffed up indignation and apoplectic doom-mongering about the end of civilisation—that that merger was in their manifesto.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: Hon. Members should listen to this for a moment, and I shall then take some more interventions.
	I quote:
	"Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
	On Wales, the then leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), could not have been more explicit:
	"To take account of the changed role of the Secretary of State for Wales, I shall, as Prime Minister, give the incoming Secretary of State for Wales an additional United Kingdom role within the Cabinet"
	If that was not clear enough, the following day, BBC News online—no doubt, briefed by the Tory leader's office—named the office of Leader of the House of Commons as the most likely post to be merged with that of the Welsh Secretary or the Scottish Secretary. So here I am, the embodiment of perhaps the only Tory policy at the last election that made sense. What have the Tories done? They have recanted, which is total hypocrisy and total opportunism.

Alex Salmond: It would have been better to say that all this was a blunder. The idea that this embarrassing chaos was planned is absolutely mind-boggling, but let us get back to what is on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House made the serious suggestion that House officials had been inaccurate in describing Mr. David Crawley as
	"Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."
	Let the right hon. Gentleman be specific: is he saying that House officials have made a mistake; or is it a result of the Government's embarrassment and blundering?

Peter Hain: I made no reference to a mistake; I said that the wording was drawn up by the House authorities. I made that absolutely clear.

Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Peter Hain: I will not give way again to someone who wants to destroy the United Kingdom and separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman can wait a moment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very obvious that the Leader of the House is not prepared to give way at the moment.

Nick Palmer: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that he is being a bit unfair to the shadow Leader of the House because he is trying to pin on him the policy of the previous short-term leader of the Conservative party, and the present short-term leader of the Conservative party has made it clear that he does not have a policy?

Peter Hain: Indeed. We searched in vain for a policy from the leader of the Conservative party, even on something to which he said he has been committed in the past: a supreme court.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: Not for the moment. I have taken a lot of interventions, and I am happy to take more.
	The Liberal Democrats' leader in Wales was on the radio yesterday, huffing and puffing. Perhaps he has forgotten his party's manifesto at the last election and, a few months ago, its evidence to the Richard commission advocating the abolition of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office.
	No one will take seriously the other cause taken up by leader of the Conservative party—the opposition to any change in the role of the Lord Chancellor. Again, what we are doing is a sensible, measured act of constitutional modernisation.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: In a moment. Let me finish this point.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Thursday evening a full and open process of consultation on proposals leading to three reforms. First, we will consult on establishing an independent judicial appointments commission to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. Scotland already has an independent Judicial Appointments Board, and one is being set up for Northern Ireland. That reform has strong support among the judiciary. It will boost judicial independence and the transparency of the appointments process, and it is fully in keeping with the trend across all public appointments.

Barry Gardiner: The Opposition have made much of the part-time nature, as they call it, of the posts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the primary responsibility of any Member of Parliament—whether or not he or she is a Minister—is to represent his or her constituents, and that to diminish any ministerial post by describing it as "part-time" is to ignore an MP's primary responsibility? The people of this country believe that the real problem is that many Opposition Members have part-time jobs, instead of representing their constituents?

Peter Hain: I could not agree more. On the part-time issue, I made it clear on accepting the Prime Minister's invitation that I did not want to carry on as President of the Council. As I have been informed by predecessors and others, those duties, undertaken in recent times by the Leader of the House, could account for up to a third and sometimes more of the week's diary time. That responsibility has been transferred to the Leader of the House of Lords.

Dominic Grieve: The purpose of getting rid of the Lord Chancellor is to lead to a separation of powers, which is deemed to be desirable in the interests of judicial independence. Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain how it is in the interests of judicial independence that for a period of at least 18 months, if not longer, the discharge of the function of the appointment of judges has been transferred to a Minister who does not want to take on the responsibilities of being Lord Chancellor, with the independence that that implied, and has been transferred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and to a Minister who shows every sign of simply wanting to be the lackey of the Prime Minister in that respect?

Peter Hain: That really was hard work as a question—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the answer. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made it clear that he will not sit as a Law Lord—

Dominic Grieve: But he appoints the judges.

Peter Hain: Obviously, because that is the existing system, and it takes a bit of time to reform. That process of reform, which the Conservatives do not like—they do not like modernisation or reform, and they want things to stay the same for ever and a year—will be in a context of consultation.

Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the way in which the Government are tackling this matter is like throwing tacks on a cricket pitch? He knows all about that. When he answers, will he also tell us how he will apportion his time between his two jobs?

Peter Hain: As it happens, for the record, although I am not sure that it is relevant, I never threw any tacks on any cricket pitches.

David Heath: rose—

Peter Hain: Let me take a serious question.

David Heath: A long time ago, the right hon. Gentleman talked about informed opinion outside this House and a coalition of interests against reactionary forces that were frustrating reforms. Informed opinion outside the House was very interested in the concept of a ministry of justice deriving some of its powers from the Home Department. Reactionary forces within the Home Department threw their toys out of the pram and said that that would not happen. Will there be a proper debate about that and proposals to take powers from the Home Department and give them to the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that it becomes a genuine ministry of justice?

Peter Hain: Again, I think it best that the hon. Gentleman reads the press release issued by No. 10. If he wants to initiate a debate along those interesting lines using Liberal Democrat time in the House, that will no doubt prove fruitful.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman talks a great deal about consultation, but at the same time he talks about the Government's plans as though they were set in concrete. What will they do if the results of the consultation are inimical to their current apparent policy?

Peter Hain: As the Leader of the House of Lords made clear yesterday, if the other place decides that it does not want to elect its own Speaker, and would prefer the Government to appoint its Speaker, which is very unlikely, no doubt the Government will have to listen.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: I want to make some progress in explaining some of the detail, as some Members clearly have not followed it.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Peter Hain: I will then happily take more interventions, including one from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
	Secondly, we will consult on the establishment of a supreme court to replace the existing arrangement of the Law Lords, who operate as a Committee of the House of Lords. That will take the Lord Chancellor, a politician and Minister as well as a judge, out of the final court of appeal and establish it on a fully independent basis. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although he refused to confirm it, agrees with us. He said that
	"I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well . . . we would have nothing to fear from that."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]

Eric Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that contribution was in the context of the then debate on reform of the House of Lords, which, courtesy of the Government, seems to have ground completely to a halt. Will he put it in context?

Peter Hain: We have already concluded the first stage of reform of the House of Lords, and we await the second stage. What does the right hon. Gentleman believe? Does he believe in a supreme court or not? What does the Leader of the Opposition believe? What is the Opposition's policy? They do not have a policy any more.

Geraldine Smith: This debate, although entertaining, shows how out of touch the Opposition are with the British people. Not many people in my constituency will lose sleep over the Government reshuffle. What they are concerned about is the health service, education and antisocial behaviour. Why will the Conservatives not discuss those subjects?

Peter Hain: Because they are frightened of doing so.
	The supreme court idea, too, is a sensible measure of constitutional modernisation, supported by, among others, none other than the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 17 March 1998, he said:
	"I am wondering whether it—
	the judicial appointments system—
	"could not all be brought more into the open . . . by having a different system for example a judicial appointments commission."
	He has also said:
	"I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally"—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chamber is getting far too noisy.

Peter Hain: As I was saying, Lord Bingham has also said:
	"I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally as the supreme courts of every other country in the world, whether it be in the US, Canada, Australia, India or France".
	Furthermore, he has said, "To modern eyes"—[Interruption.] I have already referred to the grinning idiocy on the Opposition Back Benches, and we are seeing it being displayed again. His comments were:
	"To modern eyes, it was always anomalous that a legislative body should exercise judicial power, save in very restricted circumstances . . . The law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution . . . My own personal preference would be for . . . a supreme court severed from the legislature".
	That was the leading Law Lord, Lord Bingham, supporting the Government's policy.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Adrian Flook: rose—

Peter Hain: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a straight answer? Is the description on today's Order Paper of the former Scotland Office accurate or not? I only want to know the tense in which to describe the Department.

Peter Hain: I have already answered that question. The Scotland Office exists. It exists as it did before Thursday, as it does now, and as it will in the future, as does the Wales Office.

Gillian Shephard: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) say that her constituents are not at all bothered about the matters being debated in the House today. I must say to her, that my constituents—and almost everyone in the country—are deeply bothered that the one thing over which a Government have complete control, a reshuffle, this Government have utterly botched. If they cannot run their own reshuffle, they certainly cannot run the country.

Peter Hain: Again, the Opposition concentrate on process and not on substance. They are afraid of modernisation, and they do not like the idea of a supreme court—or perhaps they do. They should make up their minds. Do they like the fact that, in future, judges will be appointed by an independent commission rather than by a member of the British Cabinet? Surely such modernisation is to be welcomed by everybody.

Graham Allen: This may not be the occasion on which to consider the serious constitutional moves that were made last week, but there must come a point at which all Members of the House will look back on the announcements that were made last week, one of which—the creation of a supreme court—will remain outstanding. That is a monumental move forward by the Government on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. Should not all Members of the House consider that proposal with great seriousness, because the legislature will need to have a role of some description? Is it not appropriate that all Members should consider that? Is it not appropriate that even Her Majesty's loyal Opposition should get their act together—even if they are allowed 18 months to do so—to decide their policy on a supreme court, which may involve ratification or interview?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long an intervention.

Peter Hain: I very much welcome the opportunity that the process of consultation will give my hon. Friend, with his expert interest in this matter, to make his views known.
	The third reform we propose is to invite the House of Lords to select its own presiding officer, rather than having a Minister imposed upon it by the Government of the day, as happens now. In any rational world, that is something the Opposition should welcome with open arms. Do they agree with that or do they not? In any rational world, that is something that everyone should welcome. Indeed, many in the House of Lords welcome it. Why is it suddenly such a terrible idea? The answer is: because we are proposing it. Tories always react to change and reform like scalded cats.
	We have pledged to consult on all the reforms. My right hon. Friend Lord Williams, the Leader of the Lords, has begun consulting Members of the House of Lords on a new independent presiding officer for that House, and my right hon. Friend Lord Falconer will publish consultation papers before the summer on a judicial appointments commission and the supreme court.
	Once these reforms are in place, we will abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, but not before—as, again, was made clear in the statement issued by Downing street last Thursday that I have already quoted. I will quote it again for the Opposition's benefit. It stated explicitly:
	"For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord Chancellor as necessary."
	The purpose of the reforms is to make properly independent all parts of our judicial process and put the relationship between Executive, legislature and judiciary on to a modern footing. The former Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has nearly 12,000 civil servants. With the prospect of a unified courts administration, and with the essential task of administering the criminal and civil court system, legal aid and a range of tribunals now and a unified tribunals service in the future, the Department must in future focus on those essential tasks, with the Secretary of State based in the Department that he is running and not always in the House of Lords. That is sensible modernisation and radical reform, except to the demented hysterics in the Conservative party.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Hain: I have veritable choice. I give way to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart).

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way once again. If everything is such sweetness and light is so clear, why on earth did Downing street refer to the new arrangements as being a bit "hazy"?

Peter Hain: I have dealt with all that.

Paul Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as Lord Falconer is now the Lord Chancellor, he will receive the full Lord Chancellor's pension of £2.5 million when he leaves the post?

Peter Hain: I understand that Lord Falconer is not going to do that.

Elfyn Llwyd: I believe that these reforms are a good thing, but the way in which they came to light last week was not a good thing. There should have been proper consultation beforehand. I for one know that many judges will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. However, does not declaring that the office will go in 18 months skew the whole consultation process?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would have expected nothing less from him. He, like me, wants radical reform of the structure of government. He is not stuck in the past, unlike the Conservative Opposition. The hon. Gentleman agrees with the substance, and in respect of the process, the difference between us is perhaps that we are in government. When one is in government, one reshuffles Ministers, as the Prime Minister does from time to time out of choice or necessity, and one then consults on the implementation of the subsequent detail—which, incidentally, the Conservatives did not do in respect of any of the departmental reorganisations that they undertook.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There is clearly ample confusion among the Opposition about these changes, so may I make a pertinent suggestion? What is termed in the jargon "an idiot's guide" should be published to ensure Conservative Members' constituents are not disadvantaged.

Peter Hain: That is a valuable suggestion.

Adrian Flook: Given that we are discussing the constitutional implications of the Prime Minister's decisions last week, to what extent is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that they are no more than just a tidying-up exercise?

Peter Hain: I never described reform of the European constitution as just a tidying-up exercise. [Hon. Members: "You did."] I never said that it was just a tidying-up exercise; I said that it was a tidying-up exercise and a process of reform and modernisation. Given that more than three quarters of the clauses in the new constitutional treaty come from the existing four treaties, how else would one describe the reform other than to say that those clauses are tidied up into the new constitutional treaty?

Chris Bryant: Is not the truth of the matter that, although most ordinary members of the public are far more interested in issues to do with crime, health and education than in whether we have a supreme court, they will look to the House for a serious debate on how we separate politics from the judiciary in this country and will be a bit depressed by the pantomime that we have seen from Widow Twanky and his colleagues on the Opposition Benches?

Peter Hain: Indeed. On the point about crime, my hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, will be more interested in crime and the problems of crime—[Interruption.] That remark came from a supporter of a Government who doubled crime during their period in office. This process of reform and modernisation will help to tackle the problems of crime and the operation of our criminal justice system, because it will make it more modern and transparent and separate the judiciary from the Cabinet.

Gregory Barker: rose—

Peter Hain: I have been very generous in taking interventions, and I have more than used up my time.
	The reforms are part of a continuing process of change to ensure the modernisation of our criminal justice system, and should be seen alongside the new criminal justice laws, the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service and the changes to the Home Office that will see its functions on the constitution progressively reallocated to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so that it, too, can focus on its core work, fighting crime and changing our asylum and immigration system. All this is common-sense constitutional modernisation, which is why the Tories oppose it.
	We look forward to the next election and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst campaigning on that great issue of the 21st century—to bring back the Lord Chancellor, complete with wig, breeches, trainbearer, wallpaper and outdated role as politician, judge and Government-appointed Speaker of the House of Lords all rolled into one.

Richard Bacon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to this appalling speech for quite a long time, and I would be grateful if you could address the serious question raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about what appears on the Order Paper. I understand that the contents of the Order Paper are the responsibility of the Government and not the occupant of the Chair. I would therefore be grateful for guidance as to how Members of the House can establish whether the words "former Scotland Office" on the Order Paper are accurate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The relevant part of the Order Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers is produced and prepared by Departments of the House. It is not the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.

Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that the passage on the Order Paper is inaccurate. If it emerged that the description and information on the Order Paper came from Government Departments, would we be told and would it be regarded as a serious matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. It is not my nature to anticipate what might happen in days to come.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it would be in order for hon. Members to table parliamentary questions to get to the bottom of the matter? A serious matter of trust is developing between the Government and the House authorities, and I know which side most of us will be on.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and will know that it is entirely up to hon. Members to go to the Table Office and table a question, where they will be advised accordingly.

Peter Hain: Those exchanges were instructive. What are Conservative Members concerned about? They are not concerned about the big picture of radical reform and the modernisation of our antiquated constitutional structure. I pledge to the House that we, the Labour Government, will battle for better public services, including a better courts and criminal justice system, which the people of this country want and which will be advanced hugely by the radical reforms announced by the Prime Minister last week.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us take a particular interest in the procedures of the House. Would you be kind enough to ask Mr. Speaker to ensure that a full list of ministerial responsibilities is published prior to the delayed sitting of the Committee of Selection on Thursday?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I shall ensure that the matter is brought to his attention and therefore I have no doubt that a list will be available.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it will assist the House, I shall arrange for a copy of the list of Ministers to be placed in the Library at the end of the debate.

Paul Tyler: I welcome the new Leader of the House and congratulate him on both his personal and political change of circumstances over the weekend. He will recall with great affection, as do I, the time when we were young Liberals together and he was truly radical. I regret that he has become more reactionary in his older age.
	I enjoyed the excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I am sure that the whole House did—which was clearly a leadership bid. I noted a reference to the Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is also confusion about that because no one is sure now who the Lord Privy Seal is. I think that I am right that he is not a Lord, a privy or a seal, but one of those categories might change.
	In business questions last Thursday, I anticipated the then Leader of the House's change of status to Secretary of State for Health. It was one of my nightmare scenarios but it came true in a matter of hours. I asked the then Leader of the House:
	"is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister can dramatically change the geography—the structural architecture, if you like—of Whitehall without any reference to the House at all? We find major Departments of state changing their responsibilities with major implications for the way in which we can hold such Departments to account."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 834.]
	That foreshadows the critical issue for the House—not the longer-term changes, some of which we welcome, but the way in which the changes have come about.
	If there is one clear lesson from the past five days, it is that the cavalier constitutional carve-up that has taken place is demonstrable evidence that the Prime Minister is frankly not interested in the implications of constitutional change. That goes right back to 1997, because I remember when my party and the Labour party were in opposition and we reached agreement on major constitutional changes, which saw fruition in the so-called Cook-Maclennan agreement. The Prime Minister elect—the Leader of the Opposition as he then was—was frankly not interested in such changes and he must regret losing the previous but one Leader of the House from his right hand because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is extremely interested in such matters and has a long track record of interest in constitutional reform.
	The agreement in 1997 touched on these issues, so I reject absolutely the idea that they are suddenly new to the House. The issue of the supreme court goes back more than 100 years and enjoys support among all parties, but that is not the subject of the debate. Labour Members who try to say that it is relevant have not read the Order Paper.
	There are important issues to consider. First, as was implicit in the Cook-Maclennan agreement, we must protect the judiciary from real or perceived political interference. Secondly, my colleagues and I have believed for a long time that we must separate the ceremonial role of the Lord Chancellor from his real political role. Thirdly, we must ensure that the House of Lords is given more democratic legitimacy so that it can complement this House's scrutiny role. Finally, we must follow through the devolution agenda to reduce interference from Whitehall. It is clearly absurd to pretend that everything is precisely the same as before. We have heard that all parties, including the Conservative party, have accepted the need for review, but that is not the issue.
	It is true that the matter has not caused great concern in the public bar of the Sailors Arms in my constituency. I am sure that the public are not greatly worried about the fate of an elderly gentleman robed in a red dressing gown and wearing silk stockings and a miniature duvet on his head while sitting on an overgrown cushion, but that is not the issue. If the public are worried about that, they are clearly nostalgic about Gilbert and Sullivan or the Whitehall farce. Indeed, now that Lord Rix is in the other place, perhaps he can take to the stage again in the role of presiding officer having left the other stage.
	The most welcome feature of the discussions—I hope that we will have discussions rather than diktats from No. 10—that can be dimly discerned through the past few days' fog of confusion is the fact that a proper separation of powers among the Executive, the judiciary and legislature will be implemented at last. Goodness knows that the process will need careful handling after 100 years of confusion if we are to prevent future confusion. I think that all hon. Members accept that point and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not in the Chamber because he has given the matter much thought. Even he would accept that the House and the general public have not yet had the opportunity to think through the consequences.
	Getting rid of the Lord Chancellor's role after 1,400-plus years will clearly be complex and difficult. We will have to unravel a pervasive presence throughout statute—I am informed that there are some 500 references to the Lord Chancellor in statute—and the process will require primary legislation. Unless the entire 2003–04 legislative programme is devoted to the Lord Chancellor's abolition Bill, we will be in big trouble. It is only right for the House to be invited to participate in discussions.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to agree with the basic principle advanced by the Prime Minister in creating the Department for Constitutional Affairs. He also agrees that there should be a process of consultation in this House and the other place. How could he possibly vote for the Conservative motion given that it objects to those actions?

Paul Tyler: That is simply untrue. If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion carefully, which I have—I always approach Conservative motions with care—he will notice that it stresses the need to consult on how we proceed. I agree with that. He should think carefully about the problems that we will incur if the process is pushed through with the excess energy and urgency that was apparent last week. That caused confusion on both sides of the House, including among Ministers.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Tyler: In a moment.
	Before I address how we should deal with consultation, I want to emphasise the huge number of ancillary issues that are involved. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor is patron of a large number of Church of England livings. That has to be unscrambled, as does his role as "Keeper of the Queen's Conscience". It may be that that is not a difficult or time-consuming role to fulfil for the present incumbent, but who knows what the future holds? It may become an onerous responsibility. All that has to be undone. A great number of jobs will have to be unravelled through primary legislation.

Gordon Prentice: I have read the motion and am unclear about what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he proposing that we follow the Canadian example, by which central Government cannot be reconfigured without legislation?

Paul Tyler: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. As things stand, primary legislation will be required to undo the role of the Lord Chancellor. If he examines the detail of the role carried out by the Lord Chancellor after so many years of our constitutional development, he will find that to be true. That is a fact of life.

Patrick Cormack: Is not this a prime case of needing first, a White Paper, and secondly, a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny on which we can take evidence? Surely one solution is to retain the Lord Chancellor with his non-political, yet still important, ceremonial roles and to distribute the others. There are many ways of responding to the problems raised.

Paul Tyler: To my amazement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he has looked over my shoulder at my script. I want to make precisely that point, which will worry him because we are not usually on the same side on matters of radical constitutional reform.
	If the intended objective of last week's flawed rearrangement of the deck chairs was truly a radical realignment, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept it as necessary to meet 21st century needs. However, it was clearly bungled in both its implementation and the complete lack of appreciation of the possible consequences and of the need for consultation and explanation. A much more successful outcome, with which many of us would be hard put to disagree, could have been achieved by following at least one of the options that my colleagues and I, and it would seem others, propose.
	We could retain the ceremonial role of the Lord Chancellor and his role as the presiding officer in our second Chamber, which is not an onerous responsibility as Members of the House of Lords constantly remind us, but make it clear that he or she would have to be elected by the membership. That is one option. It would involve removing all political functions, leaving only ceremonial functions—for example, in relation to the Crown.
	Clearly, we would have to create a separate and independent judicial appointments commission. That is probably a commonly accepted policy. It would demonstrate once and for all that we are truly and obviously preserving the independence of the judiciary, which is not clear under the present dispensation. We should appoint a new Secretary of State, accountable to the House and, through us, to our electorate, for such matters as those to which the Leader of the House referred. It is extraordinary that the Home Office, in the person of the Secretary of State, was able to block the most important reform of all, which would have brought together the administration of criminal and civil justice in one new Department. That is quite absurd. The Leader of the House implied that the new Department will bring those functions together, but that is not true. It is yet another confusion. The Home Secretary managed to block that and it is outrageous that No. 10 caved in to such pressure.
	We should take account of devolution and find new machinery to ensure that the devolved Assemblies are properly linked to this place. Those responsibilities that are reserved to Parliament should be properly accountable to this place either through a new Secretary of State for the devolved Assemblies or a Cabinet Office Minister with a seat in the Cabinet. Once the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running that, too, will require representation in the House on that basis. In due course, if the legislation proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister comes into effect, the English regional assemblies will also require a similar linkage. Surely we should enable the devolution process to evolve in such a way that we give manifest effect to reducing Whitehall's interference, which would mean a reduction in the number of not only ministries, but Ministers. We have far more Ministers today than when the British empire existed and we were responsible for large parts of the world.
	What happened on Thursday was no carefully thought through strategy to achieve that aim; it was a series of slap-dash afterthoughts. Is transport a part-time job? Anyone who sat through Transport questions an hour or two ago will know that it is a full-time job, and so it should be. Is the Leader of the House underemployed? If he thinks that that is true, he does not know what is coming to him when he tries to organise next year's business. I have explained the scale of the pressure on our business if the Lord Chancellor's position is abolished.
	There is also the extraordinary example of a Member who represents a Scottish constituency having responsibility for the NHS in England. I remember only too well that when Labour Members were in opposition they used to make fun of a Welsh Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who came not from Wales but from Yorkshire. They still do that, but they should not if they want to contend that the new arrangement is the proper way to hold a Minister to account.
	If part of the package included real movement on the role of the House of Lords, we would see a grain of consistency in the package, but that is not the case.

Tam Dalyell: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, but how do we link in, as he put it, one legislature to another? That subject troubled the House for many Sessions, both in 1978 and 1979, and subsequently in the late 1990s. It is easier said than done.

Paul Tyler: I agree with the Father of the House, but there are two roles to consider. One is the responsibility for matters that are not devolved but are reserved to the House. Those are variable in terms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The second role is, as he said, the linkage between the legislatures. Other countries have succeeded in finding a way of doing that. I am not going to make a full suggestion off the cuff, but I accept the point that he articulated. I hope that he, too, will take seriously the lack of consultation on this exercise and will respect the motion.
	The Labour party manifesto for the last general election committed it to ensuring that the Lords become "more representative and democratic". In that context, we need to look carefully at the role of the Law Lords. We have no misgivings about working towards the establishment of a supreme court. I do not like the name and hope that we find another one, but I am sure that there is widespread support for such a body, not just in the legal profession, but outside it and across the House. As we heard, Conservative spokespersons are firmly in favour of it. It has been more than a century since the reform was promoted as necessary.
	I hope that the Prime Minister will understand, if he takes the trouble to read the debate, that Members on both sides of the House and in both Houses share the same objective. What they object to is the manner in which the reform has been carried out—as if it were a game of musical chairs in which the pianist is only interested in ensuring that his friends stay on their respective seats while the others are pushed off the end. That is not a proper way to monkey with the British constitution.
	The evidence given by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the noble Lord Strathclyde shows that the Conservative party is not opposed to reform even though it has been characterised as such. I am glad about that. Some Conservative Members might not want to reform anything, but on the whole there is a consensus that reform must take place. That is particularly true of the issue of a supreme court. I pray in aid the words of Lord Howe, the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, who said in the Lords yesterday that
	"all the measures comprised in the package presented on Thursday have had substantial and growing support for a long time".
	Lord Howe could not have been more specific. I do not think that he would love me if I described him as a dangerous radical, but he is probably broadly attuned to the views of many members of the House of Lords. He went on to say that objections arise because
	"this package of proposals, whatever their intrinsic merits, arrives in the form of a pre-emptive bunch of products produced as a misguided political change of governance."—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 540–41.]
	I cannot see how any Government Member can deny that that is true.
	There has been a complete lack of effective consultation. Even now, there is an extraordinarily vague approach to the issue of consultation. We must find a way of reintroducing cross-party discussion of these important issues and the consequences not foreseen by No. 10. Is there nobody in No. 10 with any constitutional or historical perspective? Taken with the Prime Minister's last-minute U-turn about the composition of a reformed second Chamber, that surely suggests that, at the very least, he is badly advised.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to argue not about elections in the House of Lords but about elections to the House of Lords. He is still arguing that we should have reform and consultation; the only thing that is wrong is the reshuffle last week, which led to the process in which we are now engaged. However, the only way to start putting together a package of proposals is to create a Department that will eventually take on the new responsibilities.

Paul Tyler: That is clearly absurd. However, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall deal with what we should do next. Let us be positive and, as he may play a role in this, perhaps he will listen carefully.
	All is not lost. The House will recall that the Prime Minister was belatedly persuaded to accept that a substantial constitutional change to the Lords required a cross-party consensus. Very belatedly, after every other attempt to reach sensible conclusions, he permitted the appointment of a special Joint Committee—this is where the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) may come in—which is still in existence. It has nothing to do at the moment because the Government have effectively blocked any further development of proposals on the reform of the House of Lords. However, it includes distinguished former Ministers from all parties—except my own, sadly—in both Houses. They are currently on stand-by—they are not doing any work because of the mess that No. 10 has got itself into—but they may well be prepared, given an appropriate remit, to look at the wider constitutional options created by the bungled changes of last week. They could then give guidance to both Houses about what should happen next, especially in the second Chamber, whether reformed or not.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that he is on record as a democratic reformer of the Lords. I appreciate and welcome the fact that, unlike the former Lord Chancellor, who will now have more time with his pension, and the previous Leader of the House, he is committed to an elected, democratic and representative House of Lords. If we see a wider picture of reform, we may realise that there is more sense to modernising its operation, to which he has referred in media interviews, and the other proposals that will apparently be introduced. It would be wrong to start fiddling with the responsibilities of the House of Lords without looking at its constitution and composition.
	Meanwhile, the newly established Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), could look at the judicial changes that have been proposed. That is the proper parliamentary way in which to make progress—it is not achieved by diktat by No. 10 over a weekend to try to satisfy the aspirations and ambitions of colleagues. I very much hope that there will be a return to parliamentary governance to deal with these issues, rather than the diktat of an overweening and powerful Executive.
	The motion rightly emphasises the Government's failure to consult and to appreciate the consequences of that. I hope that this House and the Lords will rise to the occasion. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who is sadly not in the Chamber but takes these issues seriously, for the following quotations. In 1908, when Henry Chapman MP claimed that the House of Lords was the "watchdog of the constitution", my erstwhile Liberal colleague Lloyd George responded that it was "Mr. Balfour's poodle." In the next few weeks, we shall learn which House deserves which epithet from the way in which we respond to this opportunity.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, but shall confine myself to the implications of the reshuffle for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office. Those who believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is no more and that the Wales Office is dead and buried need mourn no longer. Reports of their deaths are premature and, Lazarus-like, both have risen from the grave after untimely obituaries appeared in the press last week. The headlines rang loud and the editorials even louder, but they rang false. "The Welsh Office is dead," say the press and the Opposition, but I say, "Long live the Welsh Office.
	We have had an interesting few days. Regrettably, there are no Welsh nationalists in the Chamber at the moment, although I am sure that they will be back. They periodically wax lyrical about the lack of workload in the Wales Office, but they were suddenly convulsed by fits of rage when their punch bag was taken away from them. All of a sudden, instead of portraying staff in the Wales Office as people who sat on their hands and whiled away the hours until home time, nationalists talked about them as dedicated staff who do not have enough hours in the day to cover the important issues in Wales. The Wales Office was transformed in the teary eyes of the nationalists into a dear family home that they had loved and would miss, and the Secretary of State was transformed into a dearly loved relative. Such tears were wept as have not been seen in many a Welsh funeral.
	The nationalists' sadness was eased by their realisation that the change could provide a convenient argument for the further transfer of powers, including primary legislation, to the National Assembly for Wales. Surely, they whispered, there was a cunning plan by No. 10 to introduce primary powers for the National Assembly by the back door. Without a Secretary of State and a fully staffed Wales Office, they argued, there was an unanswerable case for primary powers for the National Assembly, as well as better drafted and considered Welsh law. The nationalists dried their eyes, and saw that that a step had been taken towards their holy grail—the establishment of an independent Wales for an independent Welsh people.
	The nationalists will of course deny that that is the case, and I am sure that they will take issue with me. They do not mention the I-word any more. New members of the party are screened to ensure that "independence" does not pass their lips. Older members drift away from the party in disgrace or dismay, but if they stay, they have to swear solemn oaths and forbear ever uttering the words, "Independent Wales". The nats are happy that the reshuffle has resulted in the misunderstood prospect of a step in the right direction. They went into overdrive, and some of members of the Welsh press followed them like lemmings—"What do we want? More powers! When do we want them? Now!" It all looked so good on Thursday, but there was a problem—they had it all wrong.
	It was soon clear that there was still a Secretary of State for Wales, and a merry band of men and women in the Wales Office. On Thursday, as I told the House in an intervention, I had to deal with a case in my constituency involving a threat to several thousand jobs. I raised that on Thursday evening in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who assured me that he would consider the matter, and I await a favourable response.

Dominic Grieve: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer this question: is it not a feature of our ministerial system that Ministers are accountable for the actions of their officials? That is a central pillar. In those circumstances, how can the Secretary of State for Wales, or what is left of him, be answerable for the actions of his officials when he does not have any responsibility for them, as they are within the domain of another Minister in another place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that can be dealt with very simply. For the purpose of Welsh questions, the Minister will be here at the Dispatch Box. For the purpose of Welsh issues, I as a Welsh Member will raise them directly with him. There is no confusion, except on the part of the Opposition.

Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman support the decision that one person ought to do the job of Leader of the House of Commons and also the job of Secretary of State for Wales?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I have no difficulties with that. It was a policy advanced by the Opposition. Let me elaborate. I was one of the signatories supporting the retention of a Secretary of State for Wales. That is why I am happy, since Thursday evening when the position was made clear, and from subsequent discussions with the Wales Office, that that remains in place.

Nigel Evans: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's response. The early-day motion that he signed stated:
	"That this House believes that the Secretary of State for Wales performs a vital role in the government of the United Kingdom; and further believes that this office should be retained as an individual cabinet post".
	Clearly, that is not the case. There is one person doing two jobs. The Lord Chancellor takes partial responsibility for Wales. The hon. Gentleman should read early-day motions before he signs them, because since the reshuffle he has clearly changed his mind.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Not only can I read an early-day motion, I can be instrumental in drawing one up. The Secretary of State retains his position as an individual Cabinet member. He is also Leader of the House of Commons. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are advantages for some of us with Welsh seats in having a Leader of the House who is also Secretary of State for Wales.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that some Welsh nationalists and, I think, Scottish nationalists, have been arguing that the major constitutional follow-on in Wales from last week is that full law-making powers should be given to the Welsh Assembly. Does he believe that, if we were ever to go down that route, we should have a referendum?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely and categorically. I shall return to that in a moment. It is important to the reshuffle and what it meant in the eyes of Back Benchers for constitutional issues for Wales, and what it seemed to mean for Opposition Members, particularly in the nationalist community.
	How did the nationalists, the Tories and everybody else who jumped on the passing bandwagon manage to get it so wrong, as was exemplified once again today from the Opposition Front Bench? It is a problem familiar to all those who leap to conclusions, rather than waiting for the full story to emerge. It is a condition referred to in political, if not clinical, circles as premature extrapolation.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman scoffs at people, who, he says, have got it wrong. That includes almost every observer of the political scene, as well as almost every participant in the political scene, including many newly appointed Ministers. Does it occur to him that the reason why people are confused about the situation is that it is the most God-awful mess?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can only speak from a personal perspective. At the moment when several thousand jobs in my constituency were at risk, I had no difficulty knowing where to address my concerns—and that was on the evening of the announcement. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I intervened. It may be a good idea to provide an aide mémoire or idiot's guide to clarify the current position.

John Bercow: It is not entirely clear to me which is the more striking phenomenon: the hon. Gentleman's loyalty or his ambition. Doubtless that will become clear in due course. I understand his focus on Welsh matters. Given that he is one of a handful of defenders of the Government present today, can he answer the straightforward question whether the Scotland Office is former or current?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The answer has already been given by the Secretary of State, who is far worthier than I to give it. The hon. Gentleman directs his question to the wrong person, but I can tell him categorically with respect to the Wales Office, which seems to be a source of confusion among Opposition Members, that the Secretary of State's position still exists and that he is an independent Minister.
	What are the constitutional implications of the reshuffle for Wales? At present, despite the speculation in the press, they are zero—zilch, nothing. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary continue in their roles and, at Welsh questions, the House will have a Welsh Minister at the Dispatch Box. Their staff can sleep secure in their jobs. [Laughter.] For accuracy in Hansard, I should rephrase that. The staff will sleep well in their beds after completing a hard day's work at the Wales Office. In the Welsh Grand Committee and at the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), will display their customary surefootedness. When issues in Welsh constituencies arise, I and fellow Members will know on which door to knock—Gwydr house is still standing.
	Meanwhile, the Richard commission continues with its work, taking soundings on the future of the Welsh Assembly, the powers it should have, whether it should have more, when it should have more powers and so on. Does the reshuffle have any impact on the Richard commission? Not immediately. The commission should not discard the evidence that it has taken so far, because at this time nothing has changed.
	One would not believe that if one read the letter from a leading nationalist figure, a former Member of the House and the Assembly, Cynog Dafis, in The Western Mail today. Its relevance is such that the House may allow me to read a short extract. He writes that "It follows"—from the reshuffle—
	"that the National Assembly should, as a matter of urgency, at least get full legislative powers in the areas of its competence, and preferably responsibility for additional policy areas and powers of taxation as well."
	One can see there the problem of premature extrapolation in action. One can also see hidden behind it the missing I-word—independence for Wales.
	The nationalist camp should come clean about their aspirations and be honest with the people of Wales. Their vision is not of a strong and powerful Wales within the United Kingdom, but of an independent Wales. They should not hide behind calls for increased powers in the National Assembly. They should come out of the closet, be proud of the ideals on which their party was built, be proud to be nationalists, and stop hiding behind a smokescreen of clever words and pseudo-socialism.
	There may well come a time when increased powers for the Assembly are appropriate. I believe that that time will come, but we should not rush at it. We should take one step at a time. Let us prove to the people of Wales that the Assembly can maximise the powers that it currently possesses. Then, and only then, let us argue the case for more powers. If we are to go forward with further devolution of powers—not after a reshuffle, and I am one of those who believe that that will and should happen—let us go forward with the backing of the people of Wales. There is no consensus at present, but that may change, and it may change sooner rather than later.
	For now, the existing profitable partnership continues—a Labour Secretary of State for Wales and a Wales Office that works closely with the Labour Welsh Assembly Government. I make no apologies for emphasising the Labour nature of those positions and institutions, if for no other reason than to remind the Lib Dems of their futile and shameless showboating as a minor coalition partner in the Assembly. It was credit for everything and blame for nothing.
	Those Labour politicians and Governments, working closely together for the betterment of the people of Wales, will continue, following the Government announcements. That partnership has delivered devolution, objective 1 funding, a Children's Commissioner for Wales, welfare to work targeted at the areas of highest unemployment and economic inactivity, massive investment in schools and hospitals, financial settlements year after year that far outstrip any hypothetical tinkering with the Barnett formula, retention of community health councils, the national minimum wage and huge advances in workers rights. This is a very Welsh and very Labour partnership, and it is a very fruitful one for the people of Wales.
	The motion suggests that the reshuffle is a shambles. I suggest without fear of sensible contradiction that the motion is a sham, and I urge the House to reject it emphatically. The reshuffle has, in constitutional terms, provided this country with an opportunity to move confidently forward with reforms that were so long overdue that the bailiffs were coming to enforce them. The Tories would have us tear up constitutional reforms and return to a golden age of yesteryear. I regard those views fondly, sentimentalists as Opposition Members are, living in a world gone by. The nationalists would have us tear up the Government of Wales Act 1998 and put in its place measures to introduce independence—a word that they only whisper. Even though that word is only whispered nowadays in dark corners of nationalist meetings, I look on nationalists fondly, romantics that they are, living in a world that will never be. One party is in the past; another in a fantasy future.
	While I look with tenderness on the misplaced aspirations on the Opposition Benches, I look for realism and direction from the Government. The ongoing constitutional arrangements continue to provide the very best for the people of Wales while recognising that devolution within the parameters of the Government of Wales Act is fluid and not fixed over time.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. In his estimation, how much time should the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) spend on Welsh matters as a percentage, and what percentage should he spend on being Leader of the House of Commons?

Chris Bryant: One hundred per cent. on both.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should spend all the time necessary to ensure that both jobs are fulfilled to the nth degree. I am sure that he will do that; he has proven it already and he will continue to do so.

Pete Wishart: It is fortuitous that the Leader of the House is a Welsh Cabinet member. I understand that there are currently two Welsh Cabinet members who could fulfil the role of Secretary of State. What would happen to that role, however, if there were no Welsh Cabinet members?

Chris Bryant: It is inconceivable.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. In the near future, the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman posed is inconceivable. Should it come about, it will need to be dealt with, but at this moment, it is inconceivable.
	I urge colleagues not to view Opposition Members too harshly. As I hope that I have explained, they aspire to inhabit a very different world, so the motion is somewhat detached from reality. Please treat Opposition Members gently, but send the motion back to the realms of fantasy whence it came. 2.42 pm

Patrick Cormack: That was a most elegantly written and beautifully delivered speech, but it was pretty high on the grovel scale. We are discussing a very important matter this afternoon, and I have to say something that I said a fortnight ago when we held one of those short foreign affairs debates. I deeply regret the fact that neither the part-time Secretary of State nor the very full-time shadow Secretary of State is in the Chamber for the duration of this debate. In short debates, there is no reason why the principal participants should not stay. I hope that that will be registered.
	We have to try to make sense of one of the most chaotic reshuffles in British political history. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was right that this debate is not a question of discussing the detailed merits of the proposals, putting to one side the fact that we do not know precisely what the proposals are. The manner of their introduction was an insult to this House and to the other place. I wonder whether the Queen was told. We shall never know, but, frankly, it was thoroughly insulting to play around with the constitution in this way.
	I wonder how it happened. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a malicious or malevolent man. I think that he has no real sense of history and no real regard for this place. He regards us as a bit of an inconvenience and encumbrance, and we distract him from the vision thing. I think that last Thursday he was sitting in his office at No. 10 and talking about the new Ministry of justice, for which we had all been prepared by the spin doctors. Then, Sir Humphrey, or whoever plays that role, said "Well, Prime Minister, the Home Secretary won't stand for that; you can't do it." The Prime Minister said "Oh dear. Well, I can't upset David, can I?" The reply was "No, Prime Minister, you can't upset David, it wouldn't be right", so he said, "I know what we'll do. There's my friend Charlie. He's a proper Charlie. We'll give him the job." So the flatmate was sent for and given a very good job.
	The only problem was that nobody else principally involved had been informed of what was going to happen, and the Prime Minister himself had not for a moment thought of the implications. So there followed the extraordinary stream of announcements that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House read out to us in his inimitable fashion in a brilliant speech. First, the office of Lord Chancellor was to be abolished. We were going to have a Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Wales Office and the Scotland Office were to be subsumed. That seemed to the Prime Minister to be "a good thing", in the words of "1066 and All That", but he had not thought it through. He had not realised that one cannot abolish an office that, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, is mentioned in no fewer than 500 current statutes. One cannot abolish the other two offices either, as they are again mentioned in a significant number of current statutes.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: In a minute.

John Bercow: Don't be cruel.

Patrick Cormack: I would not dare to be cruel to such a delightful hon. Gentleman.
	One cannot simply abolish things in that way, so there was backtracking, corrigenda were issued and we were told that the office of Lord Chancellor had not been abolished. I was standing at the Bar of the House of Lords last week. This House had adjourned at six o'clock, so I went to the House of Lords to see how it would receive the changes and what it had been told. As I told you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you so kindly dealt with my point of order on Friday morning, it had been told nothing. I think that it was Lord Onslow who raised a point of order and moved the Adjournment of the House. It was absolutely plain from the sparsely populated Government Benches that nobody had a clue. The Leader of the House of Lords, amiable Welshman that he is, came bustling in and tried to be emollient—I had a pleasant little chat with him afterwards—but he did not have a clue either. He made the best of a very bad job with his carefully chosen words, but nobody knew what was happening or what the implications were. Nobody knew whether there was a Lord Chancellor and what the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was going to do, or otherwise.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is obviously pregnant with speech.

Chris Bryant: Much as I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's musings about what might or might not have happened at No. 10 Downing street last Thursday afternoon, and much as I am now enjoying his Stanley Holloway-like monologue on his Bar time encounters in the House of Lords last week, I wonder what his position is on the supreme court. After all, that is one of the most important of the constitutional implications that we are meant to be talking about.

Patrick Cormack: Frankly, we are not meant to be talking about that. The motion makes it plain—we are talking about processes of consultation and a botched reshuffle. There will come a time for discussing other issues and I shall be very happy to debate the need for a supreme court or otherwise. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be entirely surprised to hear that I am an innate conservative and that I do not believe in change unless it is absolutely demonstrated that it will be for the better. I believe that there is a perfectly coherent case for a supreme court and for divesting the Lord Chancellor of many of his responsibilities in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I think that that needs to be debated in detail.
	We need a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals. Personally, I believe that it is such an important matter that I would go through all the stages—a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill that could be examined, with pre-legislative scrutiny so that witnesses could be called, and then the Bill itself. At this stage, I cannot say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) precisely what line I would take on the question of a supreme court. I am truly open-minded about that, although I have a slight predisposition in favour of not changing.

Paul Tyler: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. Has he had an opportunity to read yesterday's exchanges in the other place, where it became clear, as the discussions proceeded, that a great many important issues have not yet been faced? Perhaps even more significantly, there has been a full discussion in the other place, but we still have not had one—we are hoping to get one tomorrow.

Patrick Cormack: Precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I raised a point of order yesterday to ask for it. In response to my having alerted Mr. Speaker to the fact that I was going to do that, he said that he had been in touch with No. 10 and that we would get our statement tomorrow. We are all very grateful to Mr. Speaker, but frankly it is still not good enough: we should have had it yesterday at the same time as the statement in the Lords.
	In those exchanges, many of the implications of the changes were discussed. They range from the very profound, such as the fact that—as even the hon. Member for Rhondda would acknowledge—the Lord Chancellor's ancient office has attached to it some exceptionally important functions that must be discharged by somebody, to what some would consider trivial, such as who presents the Queen with the speech at the state opening of Parliament. [Interruption.] Well, somebody has to do it: it is an important minor role in our constitution. None of those things has been thought through.
	Another aspect that I deeply resent is that the Government have done exactly what they allege that they do not want to do—they have politicised the role of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs are now, and for an indefinite period, one and the same person. Lord Falconer will sit on the Woolsack and preside over the House of Lords for what could turn out to be a long time. He will have the job of appointing judges—an important part of the Lord Chancellor's role, which, I rather agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall, should go elsewhere. All the while, he will be a highly political member of the Cabinet, wearing his dome-like hat as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, with a relationship that has not yet been worked out with his two underlings, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. Are they, in fact, underlings? Again, we do not know.
	In the first flush of happiness from his new marriage, on which we all congratulate him, the Secretary of State for Wales may think that he is about to enter a double honeymoon—one with his wife and the other with Lord Falconer. However, I wonder how long the latter will last, and what he will do when real issues of substance crop up between them. I also want to know—the Secretary of State did not reply to this part of my intervention, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will no doubt tell me—how much of his time he envisages devoting to being Leader of the House and how much to being Secretary of State for Wales. Similarly, how much time will the Secretary of State for Transport decide to devote to that role and how much to being Secretary of State for Scotland?

Christopher Leslie: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but does he acknowledge that the proposition that more than one post should be in the hands of a particular individual was first posited by the previous Leader of the Opposition? How much time did he feel should be spent on those respective posts?

Patrick Cormack: I was the party's spokesman on constitutional affairs at that time, and I did not think that the system worked all that well, to be honest. [Interruption.] I said so at the time. I have never been one to hide my views. After all, a fortnight ago I was the one Conservative Member to march into the Government Lobby to support the Prime Minister on the inquiry into Iraq. My hon. Friends probably believed that I was profoundly mistaken, but I thought that I was right, so I did it.
	It was a perfectly understandable experiment for an Opposition party to enter into, especially at a time when it had been so decimated at the polls, but it is not a good long-term constitutional answer to the problems of the United Kingdom and, in particular, to those of Scotland and Wales.

Edward Garnier: The answer to my hon. Friend's question about how much time this bifurcated Minister will spend on each of his jobs is surely this: nobody knows, least of all the Government, partly because they have not thought about it.

Patrick Cormack: Absolutely. I want to mention one very tragic example: please God nothing like it will ever happen again. I remember Aberfan. What would a Secretary of State be able to do other than to devote every hour of every day to an issue such as that? Nobody would criticise him for so doing.

George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: I will in a second.
	Being Leader of this House is a crucial role in Parliament.

George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman will just contain himself for a moment, of course I will.
	There is no more important job in the House of Commons, other than that of Speaker, than Leader of the House. Having been shadow Leader of the House, I know a little bit about the role. The Leader of the House should be available at all times to all Members of the House. He should not have time to do any other significant job. One either says that being Secretary of State for Wales is an unimportant job with no duties—I do not believe that that is the case—or that the post of Leader of the House has been demoted.

George Foulkes: I tried to intervene earlier to prevent the hon. Gentleman from going down a blind alley. He clearly does not understand what has happened as a result of devolution. The First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland deal with such matters now. In the event of a tragedy, they would be responsible for the police service and all the emergency services: they would be on-site. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have responsibilities, but they are principally here in the House representing those countries.

Patrick Cormack: Speaking as one who has a son who stood for the Scottish Parliament, I am afraid that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that in the aftermath of an Aberfan or a Dunblane the Secretary of State for Wales or for Scotland could stay in England and escape criticism, he is absolutely wrong. One should either get rid of the office entirely or, if one keeps it because one thinks that it is important, give it to somebody who does it full-time.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
	I come back to the role of the Leader of the House. It is a role of prime importance. The Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs is not the Leader of the House's new deputy—he will wind up the debate because of his responsibilities for constitutional affairs; it is all very confusing—but he can at least pass this on to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Leader of the House is to make a success of his job, and I hope that he will, he will have to try to be a little less partisan than he was this afternoon. The great Leaders of the House in my time here—good gracious, it is 33 years tomorrow—have been able to put their party allegiance at a little bit of a distance. The greatest of them was probably John Biffen.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: In a moment, yes. My hon. Friend has rubber pants that make him bounce up and down, but he will have to stay there for a moment or two.

Chris Bryant: He will have to contain himself in his rubber pants.

Patrick Cormack: Absolutely.
	John Biffen was able to distance himself a little. Not all Leaders of the House have done it as well. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who currently chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, was a good Leader of the House in the Government's first year. However, let us not discuss personalities. If the new Leader of the House is to do his duty properly, he will not have time to be Secretary of State for Wales, whether he receives a salary for both jobs or not.
	I shall now give way to my exuberant and irrepressible hon. Friend.

John Bercow: I want to underline the significance of my hon. Friend's point. Many of us have long admired some of the political talents of the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain). However, this afternoon, he gave as hesitant and unpersuasive an account of himself as I have ever had the misfortune to hear.
	My hon. Friend is developing his thesis on the role of the Leader of the House. Does he agree that the right hon. Member for Neath could usefully learn from the dedication to the role of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and, whatever we think of his decision, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? Both were Leaders of the House of impeccable quality.

Patrick Cormack: That is entirely fair. Both spent a great deal of time here and listened to debates in which they did not participate. Leaders of the House must do such things. The performance of the current Leader of the House reminded me of the wonderful remarks in "Pickwick Papers"—weak case: abuse plaintiff's attorney. That is what the right hon. Gentleman did all afternoon.

Kevin Brennan: Argument weak—tell a joke.

Patrick Cormack: At least some of us can try to do that, whereas others sit, po-faced and smug, and make irrelevant sedentary interventions.
	I should like to consider the constitutional implications of the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health. I am delighted that the Father of the House, the author of the West Lothian question, is here. I hope that he might be moved to utterance and that, if he wants to utter, he will have the good fortune to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He knows, probably better than the rest of us put together, the implications of appointing a Minister with a Scottish constituency and no say in anything to do with health in Scotland to dictate what will happen to the national health service in England and, to some extent, Wales. Although I appreciate that Wales has a measure of devolution, it is not as complete as in Scotland.
	Again, the appointment is insensitive. I also believe that it was insensitive of the Prime Minister to remove the good doctor so quickly from the post of Leader of the House. He had barely arrived. I have the honour to be a member of the House of Commons Commission, and I believe that he attended only one meeting. That was not his fault, but how can one become knowledgeable about a job in only eight or nine weeks? That is unacceptable.
	I have a higher regard than most of my colleagues for the Prime Minister. I greatly admire his courage in recent months, and have said that on many occasions. However, I believe that his attitude towards the House of Commons, whether intentional or not, is one of contempt. Moving the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) so quickly is further evidence of that. It is not as though the Prime Minister did not have talented Ministers.
	I appreciate the blow to the Prime Minister that the resignation of the previous Secretary of State for Health must have been. I believe that he resigned for the honourable reasons that he stated, and I wish him every happiness with his family, but it must have been a blow to the Prime Minister. However, he could have called on others to fulfil the role without disrupting the affairs of the House or creating another constitutional problem.
	Last week's episode was characterised by bumbling ineptitude. We must now live with the botched consequences of that. It was instilled in me from birth that everyone has a better instinct, and I have to believe it. I therefore appeal to the Government and the Minister who will wind up to progress gently and properly. Let us have a Green Paper and ascertain what the Government want to do, if they now know. After consultation, let us have a White Paper and draft legislation. Let us call witnesses, including the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bingham, who was prayed in aid this afternoon. Let us ask them searching questions through a fairly large Committee as a pre-legislative exercise. After that, we should have a Bill.
	Nobody can pretend that such a measure would not be constitutional legislation of a high order. It should therefore be considered on the Floor of the House. Perhaps then we might reach some solutions that do not violate 1,000 years of history and retain the best of what we have and embody change only for the better. The Government have a historic opportunity. If they do not take it, they will deserve to be castigated evermore for their actions last week.

Tam Dalyell: I hope that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will forgive me if I do not pursue the issue of the appointment of a Scot to the English Department of Health. That may be a matter for another day.
	I have been sitting here since 12.40 pm and I did not intend to speak. However, I am becoming increasing troubled about a specific matter: the relationship of the civil service with some of the new Ministers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs has a good record on serious civil service problems and I am especially glad to speak to him quietly.
	The Secretary of Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is my parliamentary neighbour. He is one of the most competent Ministers and has always been superb at organising his time. No one in the House organises time to greater purpose than my right hon. Friend, whom I know well. I am bothered not about time but about civil service responsibility. I am worried about a civil servant in one Department being responsible to a Minister in another and vice versa. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned that in an intervention.
	Given our tradition of Departments, what is the position of Scotland Office civil servants who are responsible to another Department, yet have a Minister in a third Department who answers questions in the House of Commons? There is a genuine difficulty with that. There may be a solution, but it is currently convenient that the Secretary of State for Transport is an extremely competent Scot. That may not always be the case; Ministers change.
	What will be future of the Scotland Office? Residual powers exist. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will confess that some reserved powers have to be tackled in the House. We might have different views on other aspects of devolution, but surely we are united on that.
	The issue is who exercises these powers. If, by chance, there is a suitable arrangement at a particular point in time at which the Secretary of State for Transport is in a position to do the job of Secretary of State for Scotland because he is a Scot and because he is intellectually and organisationally able to do it, that is fine. But this is not a built-in situation that will continue for ever. In all seriousness, therefore, I ask the Minister to tell me—possibly when he winds up, or possibly later—how we are to reconcile something which so far as I know is absolutely new to British constitutional politics? That is the situation in which a civil servant regularly—not on an emergency basis—has to be responsible to a Minister in another Department. If that is the case, there will have to be changes in the way in which the Government operate. We have a system, but a fundamental difference is now being introduced. I just want to know how this question is to be resolved.

Francis Maude: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I regret the absence from this part of the debate of the new Leader of the House and continuing Secretary of State, who has taken both his presences elsewhere. I should have liked to take the opportunity to congratulate him in person on his happy event last Saturday, and on the acquisition of another job. In the private sector, that is known as "going plural". It would be interesting to know at what point he proposes to draw the line, and whether he is going to acquire more offices along the way.
	I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about the tone of the speech of the new Leader of the House today. I felt a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, and I have quite a high regard for him, but, for him, it was like being put in to bat on a wicket, and going out to the middle of the pitch only to find that the captain of his own team had dug up the whole pitch. I think that that is as unhappy an experience as he will have had. He is normally an assured performer, but he was most ill at ease today. And rightly so, because he is being put in to bat to defend something that is very hard to defend.
	I also regret that he tried to smear almost everyone who was raising these issues as being somehow reactionary. Frankly, it is a long time since I have been called a reactionary; the normal term of abuse for me is "moderniser". I certainly see nothing sacrosanct about 1,400 years of history that would make it impossible to contemplate change. Plenty of things were commonplace 1,400 years ago which have now happily been got rid of. The idea that an office that has existed for that length of time should be preserved simply on that basis is plainly absurd.
	However, the current situation is a very unhappy one indeed. I rather wish that the new Leader of the House had done today what he has done in many other circumstances, and been bruisingly honest and admitted that this had been a cock-up, and that the whole process had been abrasive and insulting and had alienated huge numbers of people both in the political world and outside who might, if it had been approached in a more intelligent and sensitive way, have been garnered into a gathering consensus. There is not much in the proposals that is inherently objectionable; it has just been done in the most crass way. It would have been better for the Leader of the House, on his debut event, just to admit that and say, "Let's start again, draw a line and see what we can rescue from this wreck."
	I should like to separate out some of the ingredients of this dog's breakfast. There are a number of issues involved which are not linked to each other. First, let me deal with the issue of the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. I do not regard it as improper for their roles to become part-time and to be undertaken by Ministers carrying other responsibilities. It was pointed out in what I think was meant to be a killer point that that was our policy at the last election. It seems perfectly sensible to do that as part of the upshot of the working out of the devolution settlement, and I do not see that as inherently difficult.
	There is confusion on this issue, however. The point made by the Father of the House just now—the only point that he made in his short speech—was very important. There has been—to my mind, there remains—a good deal of confusion about how the new arrangements will work. In what sense will the Wales Office and the Scotland Office be in the new Department for Constitutional Affairs? Will there be physical co-location? Apparently not. We are told that the staff are not physically going to move in there. Is it simply that the civil servants will become part of the broader structure within the new Department? That might have something to recommend it, and it was certainly the only justification that the Leader of the House raised for this issue. I would have no particular objection to that proposal, but it has not been made clear whether that is to happen.
	Who is the permanent secretary to whom those civil servants will report for pay and rations? That raises an important point about accountability, because civil servants do not report to Ministers for their pay, rations and promotion; they very properly report to other independent, impartial civil servants. What is the route of responsibility and accountability for those civil servants? It ought not to be impossible to devise something that makes sense, and with which the House would be comfortable, but we are nowhere near having had this made clear to us. This is another example of how this issue was dodged up as an expedient to sort out some personnel issues for the Government, rather than being a well-planned, well-thought-through development of the devolution settlement.

Christopher Leslie: To help the right hon. Gentleman, may I tell him that the new Department for Constitutional Affairs will have a permanent secretary, Sir Hayden Phillips? He will also be the permanent secretary for the Scotland Office and the Wales Office, whose officials will to all intents and purposes come under the Department for Constitutional Affairs in terms of pay and rations, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase.

Francis Maude: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear, but that does not address the problem that is inherent in that arrangement—namely that the civil servants have to report for their pay, rations, promotions and conditions to the head of one Department, while their political responsibility, in policy terms, is to the head of another Department. It should not be beyond the wit of man to resolve that problem. It has not been resolved, however, and it needs to be.

Edward Garnier: Was my right hon. Friend not further disturbed by the fact that the Secretary of State earlier justified this constitutional change-around by saying that it would provide "career certainty" for civil servants? That may or may not be a good reason for reorganising a Department, but it is certainly not a good basis for reorganising the constitution.

Francis Maude: I gave the Leader of the House credit for having made a slip of the tongue at that point. I am sure that he did not quite mean "career certainty".
	It is true that these vestigial Departments are unlikely to have a large enough group of civil servants for there to be meaningful career paths for them, so there is a case for putting them into a larger group for those purposes. There is, however, an issue that is as yet unresolved about how to reconcile a reporting line for career purposes that goes in one direction with a reporting line in terms of policy that goes in another.

Kevin Brennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, prior to this arrangement, the line of responsibility was even more obscure, in the sense that all the civil servants in the Wales Office were on secondment from the civil service of the National Assembly for Wales?

Francis Maude: As I have said, it should not be impossible for these arrangements to be worked out. However, we now have a new set of arrangements that is, so far as I am aware, unprecedented in Whitehall, and people need to know what is happening. I would be surprised if the First Division Association were not pretty concerned about this, and were not raising the issue with the Government even as we speak. That is yet another example of issues that have not been thought through properly, and need to be resolved in a way that will comfort both civil servants and the House.
	The position of the Secretary of State for Health is a new departure as well. The Secretary of State for Transport is a Scottish Member of Parliament, but most transport responsibilities in Scotland have been devolved, although a number are genuinely UK-wide. For the first time, we are faced with the much-anticipated scenario of a Scottish Member of Parliament effectively presiding as an English Minister over matters that do not affect his constituency in any way. This is not quite the West Lothian question; rather, it is an extension of it.
	There is no constitutional impropriety in the situation. It is not morally reprehensible. But it is another arrangement that has not been thought through properly and will introduce tension. It is likely to cause growing resentment. Our unwritten, evolving constitution has been able to adapt and respond to anxieties and resentment among those whom we are elected to govern.

Kevin Brennan: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is perhaps slightly weakened by the fact that even when his party was represented in Welsh constituencies, it chose to appoint Members with English constituencies to rule over Wales as Secretaries of State.

Nigel Evans: Labour criticised that at the time.

Francis Maude: As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party was very critical indeed. The situation is slightly different now, however. In those days we were being governed, for better or worse, as a unitary country, with no devolved legislatures or assemblies. Any new legislation affecting Scotland or Wales—on health, for example—had to be passed by the House of Commons, and all Members were able to vote on it here. Now the Secretary of State will not be able to vote on any legislation affecting his constituents, but will propose and implement legislation affecting the bulk of the United Kingdom—in other words, England. As I have said, that is not constitutionally improper, but I predict that it will be an increasing source of tension, anxiety and resentment.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman, who is making some intelligent and sensible points, seems to accept that the reshuffle has no moral implications. His central charge, like that of the shadow Leader of the House, seems to be that by its very nature it has led to constitutional changes. But every reshuffle in the House's history has led to constitutional changes. A major change took place in 1940 when Stafford Cripps was made ambassador to Moscow, and there was no consultation beforehand.

Francis Maude: There was a war on at the time. The appointment of a sitting Member of Parliament as an ambassador has never been repeated in peacetime, because it would be constitutionally improper. No permanent change was made in the constitutional arrangements then. However, I do not want to be drawn down that path.
	The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that reshuffles have frequently involved changes in the machinery of government. I do not criticise the Prime Minister for deciding to make changes in dispositions in Whitehall: that is a perfectly proper prime ministerial function, which is carried out by means of Orders in Council and implemented swiftly afterwards. What has been done in relation to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland could have been done in the same way had it not been for the quaint idea of putting their offices in a newly created Department. That does not fit neatly into a system of changes in the machinery of government to which we are entirely accustomed. I am not saying that this is the end of the world—the constitution is not tottering—but the position is needlessly unclear, and the opportunity to garner a consensus for some of the changes has been lost. That is regrettable.
	I have no deep-seated belief that nothing in the Lord Chancellor's role can be changed. There are some perfectly proper issues involving the separation of powers which have never caused any great problem, but those who like things to be neat and to conform to a constitutional textbook have been agitated by such developments in the past, and they present a tempting target to those who like fiddling with constitutional matters.
	One reason why no major problem has been caused in the past is that the office of Lord Chancellor has something to do with the arguably absurd ceremonial and dress involved, which confers a certain "otherness" on the holder of that office. The Lord Chancellor has never been an ordinary politician. He may have been one once—many Members of the House of Commons have been elevated to the other place and become Lord Chancellor—but once the robes of office are assumed, he takes on responsibilities that differ from those of an ordinary Cabinet Minister.
	I have no particular objection to the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. I would have some concerns over who sat on the commission and whether it was pursuing a particular agenda, but I think that a properly designed system that had been subject to proper consultation could work quite well. One reason why bias and partiality in the appointment of judges has never been a major issue is the fact that the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for making those appointments, makes them in a detached way, not as an ordinary member of the Cabinet. If anything, Lord Chancellors have tended to compensate for the possibility of being accused of making partial appointments by veering in the other direction.
	The existing system has worked very well. I do not object to the new system, whatever it may be, but we should not justify its creation by saying that a huge problem exists and needs to be resolved. It is at the most a third-order issue.

Keith Vaz: I am sorry that I was not present for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department—if it is still called that—visited Edinburgh this morning, and met members of the Judicial Appointments Board of the new Scottish Executive. The system works up there: it is possible to have a separate judicial appointments commission instead of the previous post of Lord Advocate. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he accept that we should have such a body, and is that now Conservative party policy?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what I utter is not necessarily Conservative party policy, although it may become it. I am merely reflecting, as the motion invites us to do, on what took place last week, and which has—whatever Labour Members may say—caused a minor explosion among those who are concerned with the state of our government and our constitution. It is not necessary to have perfect answers to such matters.
	The hon. Gentleman defends the new system in Scotland by saying that it seems to work all right—or some such phrase—but frankly, that is not praising it to the skies. He says that it has not been a disaster, and there is no reason why it should be; however, the old system was not a disaster, either. There has been what the new Leader of the House would doubtless describe as a modest tidying up; it does not affect matters hugely.
	The question of a supreme court is something of a third-order issue. What is a supreme court, other than the highest court in the land? The exception is a country with a written constitution, in which such a court is actually the guardian—the custodian—of that constitution. We do not have a written constitution, and the new supreme court will not have that function as such; it will simply operate, as the House of Lords currently does in its appellate role, as the highest court in the land. That will look neater and more like other systems, but in fact the current system has worked perfectly well.

Paul Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not have a written constitution, but it is more accurate to say that we do not have a comprehensive written constitution. Of course, several issues have been addressed in statute, such as devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London; and now, conceivably, devolution to regional assemblies will be so addressed. Indeed, our relationship with Europe, which will be written down, may well be a constitutional issue in future. I accept his general point, but he is not being quite fair in his analysis.

Francis Maude: We do not have a formal, comprehensive written constitution, but if the new European constitution is implemented, we will for the first time have a written constitution; it will simply not be one designed and made in Britain. That is a pity, really, but be that as it may. The supreme court issue is a relatively minor one, but it will please constitutional aficionados.
	My main point concerns not the detail of the proposed changes, some of which have been made and all of which are perfectly defensible, in their way. In fact, if the Government had approached this issue in a sensible and sensitive way, they could easily have gathered together some consensus for such changes. However, the way in which this has been handled is redolent of a Government who are losing the plot. When the Prime Minister reflects on the aftermath—the harvest—of last week's reshuffle, he may conclude that this was the time when the dusk started to come in.

George Foulkes: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). His contribution was rather more measured than that of the shadow Leader of the House, which was an appalling, roustabout affair that was unworthy of this House. The same was true of his many interventions yesterday, during the debate on whether Mr. Speaker should have a day off. That made a mockery of this House, and the shadow Leader of the House does himself, the House and his party no service in the way in which he addresses the House on occasion.
	Today, the shadow Leader of the House was deliberately stirring things up and obfuscating the entire issue. He was obviously creating a stooshie—a phrase that we use in Scotland—to make the situation seem more awful and dramatic than it really is. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Horsham discussed the issues in a measured and sensible way, and although that will not be so easy for me, I shall try to do the same.

Pete Wishart: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I remind him of his comments to the press last week, in which he described the new arrangements as inelegant. What did he mean by that?

George Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—it is almost as if he were a plant whom I placed here—as I was about to mention that point. I was a little critical of the fact that, initially, the situation was—if I am allowed to quote No. 10 spokespersons, as I undoubtedly am—"a little hazy". As the right hon. Member for Horsham said, we should be honest and say what we think, and the situation was indeed a little hazy. However, now that it has been clarified—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) laughs, but is he not personally a constitutional outrage? He represents Ribble Valley, yet the Leader of the Opposition has purportedly appointed him shadow Secretary of State for Wales just because he has a Welsh accent—a very Welsh accent. But that is no reason why he should hold that post while representing Ribble Valley. The issues are now clear, and I am one who supports all the changes.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham was coming round, albeit reluctantly, to accept that the separation of the powers is a good idea. Lord Chancellors may have managed to separate their roles, because of their distinction or age, but I recall that Lord Hailsham had some difficulties forgetting that he was a Conservative.

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman is always an honest performer and would not want to perform a stooshie on the House—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, can he explain what possible advantage would be derived from abolishing—or semi-abolishing—the Lord Chancellor's post, when all that was necessary was to announce a new Lord Chancellor who could start a consultation procedure that would lead, in due course, to the creation of a supreme court?

George Foulkes: The position has been clarified, and that is exactly what is happening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be honest about that. We both sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill and he was an intelligent contributor. Now that we know what is happening, I hope that he will acknowledge that the separation of the powers is a good thing. The House of Lords will now be able to elect its own Speaker, instead of having someone forced on it. I would have thought that the other place would be up in arms—no, raising their arms and cheering, rather than being up in arms. Cheering is what their Lordships should be doing. They now have the power to elect one of their own number as Speaker, which is a great step forward.
	Having an independent judicial appointments commission is also good. My hon. friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is absolutely right. In Scotland, such a system is working not just adequately, but extremely well. It was proposed under a Labour-Liberal coalition, so I hope that the Liberal spokesman will agree that it was a good idea. In fact, the Deputy First Minister, also a Liberal, introduced it.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is right. It is clear from Select Committee discussions that the system is working well in Scotland. The only problem is that all the judges still seem to come from the Edinburgh academy.

George Foulkes: I have raised that matter on several occasions and it certainly requires further exploration, but on another occasion.
	The House of Lords will be able to choose its own Speaker and we will have an independent judicial appointments commission answerable to a supreme court. Those are surely steps forward. It is also now clear that we shall have a strong Scottish voice in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) did extremely well at arguing the case for Scotland during her tenure as Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Scotland—my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—will do the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, he has the time and the ability to do so.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will carry out the donkey work. I know that it is always the No. 2 in the Scottish Office who carries out such work. I did it all, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts agrees. I sat on the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office, which dealt with energy issues and energy policy for the country for the next 50 years. I enjoyed it very much, and there was a Scottish input. As I said earlier, I also sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill in 2001 to help ensure that Scottish interests were pursued. I worked with the deputy Chief Whip, who was then the Minister, on behalf of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling will continue to do that, acting effectively for Scotland within the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) described her job as a full-time job for Scotland, but how would the right hon. Gentleman characterise that job now? What onus will be placed on the already overworked Secretary of State for Transport, who is trying to repair Britain's ailing transport infrastructure?

George Foulkes: Not only will the Secretary of State for Transport be able to carry on with that job and be the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will be able to keep the hon. Gentleman in his place at Scottish questions. Just wait for it next week.
	We also have a strong Welsh voice in the Cabinet and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be able to carry out the two functions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has been underplayed today in discussion of the Wales Office, about the role and workload of our eminent colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who used to be the Under-Secretary in the Wales Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also contributed massively to the Convention on the Future of Europe, and that has not been a problem.

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right, and that reinforces my argument. We have also seen a lack of understanding of what devolution is about. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) showed that he does not understand it and I invite him to visit Scotland or Wales to see how it is operating. Things have changed. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland do not have the same range of responsibilities that they did at the time of Aberfan or Dunblane, both of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	Even the SNP does not understand devolution. The SNP Whip, who is in his place, alleged that the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have trouble negotiating with himself on the amount of money to be allocated to railways in Scotland, but that job is done by the Scottish Executive now, so there is no conflict of interest.

David Trimble: I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber earlier to hear more of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I am listening with great interest. He has given a clear explanation of how the Secretary of State for Transport and the Leader of the House can also easily handle responsibilities for Scotland and Wales respectively. In the event of the renewal of devolution in Northern Ireland, to which Department could the Northern Ireland Office be linked?

George Foulkes: I shall think about that. There have been many complaints about my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) being Secretary of State for Health, but one of the best Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland that we have had is a Welsh Member of Parliament. He is doing a very good job. This is a United Kingdom, and I would have thought that a Unionist would have understood that in this Parliament we are all equal and, therefore, any Member from the governing party can become a Minister in any Department.
	I have pointed out the irrationality of having the hon. Member for Ribble Valley as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Even more ridiculous is having the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. What does Beckenham know about Scotland? The hon. Lady may have a Scottish accent and go on occasional day trips to Scotland, but her appointment is another constitutional outrage. That is why we take the stooshie—[Interruption.] Not, sushi—that is Japanese. "Stooshie" is the Scottish word. We take the stooshie that has been raised by the shadow Leader of the House for exactly what it is. He is a stirrer. He was stirring yesterday on the motion about Mr. Speaker's absence—and caused you a lot of trouble, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and he has been stirring again today.
	The position is now clear. We have the separation of powers, powerful voices for Wales and Scotland in the Cabinet and one of the best operators—I was going to say fixers—as Secretary of State for Health, so we are moving forward positively.

Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the reshuffle was inelegantly done?

George Foulkes: Yes. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am honest. Perhaps that is why I am on the Back Benches, not the Front Bench. I said that the reshuffle was not elegant and that it was hazy, but it has worked out right in the end. I hope that he will also be honest. In his speech, he appeared to take the view that although the reshuffle had not been managed in the most elegant way, we have ended up with a good solution. It is good for the civil servants, including my excellent old friends in the Scotland Office. They are now together with the civil servants from the Wales Office in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that will provide a career structure for them. That is a move in the right direction.
	We have clarity now, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Beckenham comes to reply, she will remember which constituency she represents and more careful than the shadow Leader of the House. She should accept that we are moving in the right direction. Interestingly, the shadow Leader of the House was asked again and again about the Tories' policy on separation of powers and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Answer was there none. I hope that when the hon. Member for Beckenham replies to the debate, she will do more than merely continue to snipe away at the Government. The shadow Leader of the House offered only obfuscation, but we need to hear what the Tories would do in respect of reform. I think that the reforms move in the right direction. I hope that we will move even further.

Pete Wishart: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). At the outset, I want to say that this has turned out to be one of the most truncated ministerial reshuffles in modern history. I should like to see the back of the envelope on which the Department for Constitutional Affairs was cobbled together. I want to know what was crossed out, and see all the improvised additions. The Department is already quite an achievement. In one fell move, the Prime Minister has managed to outrage public opinion in Scotland and Wales, and the opinion of the legal establishment in England as well.
	I also want to make it clear at the start of my speech that there is no wailing or lamenting in the streets about the demise of the former Scotland Office, and that no one is especially upset about the removal of the former Secretary of State for Scotland. Just the opposite: there is a quiet sense of satisfaction that we are now part of the way into the process of abolishing the Scotland Office once and for all, and of getting it out of the way.
	However, who would have believed that the opportunity to move on constructively from devolution would end in this Heath Robinson Department that has been cobbled together and which serves absolutely no one? Yet one thing at least is certain—even though the detail has seemed to change almost on a daily basis, the exercise has proved to be an unmitigated disaster for this discredited Labour Government who are now struggling to fill Cabinet seats, for the devolution settlement, and for the Scottish people, whose economic and social interests continue to be let down by the way in which they are governed from London.
	It is heartening to see the Government throw off the shackles of spin, but who would have thought that they would do so with such aplomb? The Government pride themselves on presentation, but they seem to have forgotten about that entirely when making this announcement. They seem to have swapped spin for total political incompetence.
	I always believed that we might get something of more substance if the Prime Minister concentrated less on political presentation. I could not have been more wrong. Even at this late stage of the reshuffle, it is difficult to know exactly what has been announced or who is in charge of what. If this is a job-share arrangement, I should like to see the job description involved.
	How have we got here? On Thursday evening, we were told that there would be a new Health Secretary and the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. There was no mention in any of the press releases of the Scotland Office or the Wales Office. I think that it was presumed that both would be abolished, but someone forgot to tell that to the new Leader of the House. He told the assembled media—anyone who was prepared to listen—that he was still Secretary of State for Wales. Apparently, it had also been forgotten that the Government of Wales Act 1998 requires there to be a Secretary of State for Wales.
	Overnight, we got a clarification: the Wales Office and the Scotland Office were not going to be abolished. What an absolute and utter disaster. It was business as usual. That was definitive—there was not going to be any reduction in the size, quality and role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was a matter of, "Move along, there's nothing to see here." Behind the doors of the Scotland Office, however, officials were working on the substance of the proposal—a fact that was confirmed by officials in that Department on Friday.
	On Friday afternoon, everything was crystal clear. Downing street said that matters were a bit hazy. It seemed that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales would still be in place, although neither would have a Department, budget or staff. An unelected peer would be in charge of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. It seemed—although we are still not sure—that he would speak for that Department in the Cabinet, with Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales still present.
	It has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Transport is a capable chap. I have no reason to deny that. He has proved himself in the Chamber and is a master of his brief, but he is very busy trying to fix the crumbling mess that is the UK's transport infrastructure. It has also been suggested that he is less than thrilled about acquiring what the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) described only last week as a full-time job.
	The Secretary of State for Transport has been made Secretary of State for Scotland solely because he is Scottish, available and in the Cabinet, but what happens if he is reshuffled? What happens if he follows the example of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and decides to spend more time with his family? Will the job of Secretary of State for Scotland follow the right hon. Gentleman around the Cabinet? If he decided to leave the Cabinet, would it leave with him through the Cabinet Office's exit door?
	The situation for Wales is even more precarious; only two Ministers speak for Wales, so I am sure that my Welsh colleagues will be checking on their health.

Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the position of the Scottish National party? He complained when there was a full-time Secretary of State for Scotland; now he complains that that responsibility is shared with another Cabinet post. Would he prefer it if there was a separate individual to argue for Scotland at the Cabinet table, in which case the SNP has reversed its view, or is his way of standing up for Scotland to take Scotland's voice completely away from the Cabinet?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We have a Scottish Parliament, with grown-up Ministers who can act on behalf of Scotland because they represent Scotland. The Parliament can deal with things effectively.
	I remain concerned about my colleagues from Wales because there are only two Ministers. What if anything happened to them? Would the job of Secretary of State for Wales disappear?

John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris)? Does the hon. Gentleman want a part-time Secretary of State, a full-time Secretary of State or no Secretary of State at all?

Pete Wishart: The solution is neat and simple: to return the powers reserved by the Westminster Parliament to the Scottish Parliament where they belong. Rather than a half-baked solution with a part-time Secretary of State, Scotland needs that transfer of powers, with the functions of the Scotland Office returned to the Scottish Parliament. That is what I want; that is what we require in Scotland and that is what will enable Scotland to move forward.
	Scotland's economic growth is half that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We have the worst unemployment in the UK—[Hon. Members: "That is not true."] We need to transfer powers to Scotland so that we can move forward—[Interruption.]

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I must tell the House that I do not want sedentary barracking; it does not help the debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for giving way. As the representative of the nationalist community on the Opposition Benches, will he explain whether his solution holds true for Plaid Cymru in Wales? Is that its aspiration?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to be described as the representative of the nationalist community, but it is clear that Plaid Cymru has argued coherently that a Secretary of State will be required until primary legislative powers are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That position is clear and I have seen press releases to that effect; it certainly makes sense to me.
	Before that transfer of powers can take place, something else has to happen immediately: we must ensure that the £7 million for the operating costs of the former Scotland Office is transferred to the Scottish Parliament as a priority. That money must be put back into front-line services—the people's priorities of education, health and crime reduction. Those funds must not be transferred to a strange cobbled-together Department, which will not represent Scotland or ensure that it receives a good share.
	Rather than appointing part-time politicians to meaningless posts, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament should take full responsibility for its own affairs. That solution would be transparent and democratic; the Government's plans are neither.
	Just as it is undemocratic that an unelected peer is at the head of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so it is undemocratic, as many hon. Members have mentioned, that a Member representing a Scottish constituency is in charge of the health system south of the border. The new Secretary of State for Health can introduce all manner of unpopular reforms, such as foundation hospitals, and then escape to Scotland where such innovations have been rejected by the Scottish Executive. We have had the West Lothian question for the past 30 years; now we are moving on to the Hamilton, North question.
	Are those the actions of a modern, forward-thinking and visionary Government? Are they the actions of a Government who are putting the interests of the people of Scotland at the heart of the major constitutional decisions that they are taking on our behalf? The qualifications for leading the vanguard of constitutional reform and taking our political institutions into the 21st century seem to be based on being the Prime Minister's flatmate and golfing partner.
	The Government's solution suits no one; it is completely unsustainable. The First Minister for Scotland has already talked about moving on from the arrangements. I cannot support them and that is why we in the nationalist community will vote against the Government this evening.

Edward Garnier: I shall speak as quickly as possible; indeed I shall gallop—something we do a lot in my part of Leicestershire.
	The debate has been strange, not least for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), with whom, to some extent, I agree. I do not take the apoplectic view that to have a Secretary of State for Health who happens to represent a Scottish constituency is something to be ashamed of or worried about, any more than I complained, when the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development, that he did not represent overseas. Such arguments can be put on one side. I am more concerned about whether the Secretary of State for Health and his Government's policies are any good. I suspect that they will not be.
	I am also concerned about the way in which the changes have come about and the consequences that they may have for us all. One has only to look at the way in which the Government amendment to the Opposition motion is phrased to see how parlous the state of affairs is. I compare that with the way in which the military campaign was planned and executed in southern Iraq by the British armed forces. While the reshuffle was going on, I was visiting the British armed forces in Iraq, and I got back at the weekend to find the mess that the Government had dished up on the Thursday.
	If the military campaign had been planned and executed in a fashion similar to the way in which the Government reshuffle was apparently planned and executed, the military mission would have been an unmitigated disaster. Thank goodness, it was not, for the obvious reason that the military planners had got their heads round the issues rather more carefully than the political planners at No. 10.
	One goes on to look at the exact wording of the amendment and one sees all the usual new Labour-speak, which is no more than drivel, and it is supposed to be a defence of the Government position. One looks at expressions such as
	"welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution . . . focused on improving the criminal justice system"
	and
	"consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission".
	[Interruption.] The intellectual rigour with which the matter was considered is reflected in the remarks and rather sad jeers of those who apparently represent the Government. If I had the time, I would continue with a clause-by-clause description of the lacklustre amendment.
	The problem with the Government is that they think that words such as "modernise", "focus" and "consult" are the answer to the issues that we face. On reading the amendment, one can smell the burning oil, the grinding gears and the binding brakes of the Government desperately trying to alter course, having been made such a fool of over the weekend.
	I do not think that the relevant Secretary of State is here at the moment.

Patrick Cormack: He has not been here at all.

Edward Garnier: No, poor dear.
	The position is made yet worse by the Secretary of State promising consultation, while anticipating the outcome by already reaching a conclusion that will not be the subject of consultation. He says that a judicial appointments commission is a good idea and one will come into being. It may or may not be a good idea, but what is the point of the consultation if he has already reached a conclusion?

Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply to the debate for 15 minutes; I have only about four minutes to get across a speech that could have taken half an hour, so he should consider himself lucky that I am confined to four minutes.
	As I was suggesting, the Secretary of State has already reached a conclusion irrespective of the consultation that he promised, so we see yet again that the expression, "Government consultation" is no more than an inelegant oxymoron.
	I suspect that the cheers from Government Members about the changes to the Lord Chancellor's office have nothing whatever to do with the constitutional good sense of the reforms, but everything to do with the personality of the previous Lord Chancellor. Probably from day one when the Government took office in 1997, the previous Lord Chancellor made a fool of himself through his inability to behave in a politically and diplomatically sensitive way. That is not his fault. He is a man of huge intellect and great legal experience and expertise, but he was wholly unsuited to the delicate role required of a Lord Chancellor.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The previous Lord Chancellor appointed the hon. and learned Gentleman as a silk—a Queen's counsel—so was his judgment wrong in that as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair but a point of debate.

Edward Garnier: It is not even a fact; I was appointed a silk by Lord Mackay.
	All that lies behind the antagonism of Labour Back Benchers for the office of Lord Chancellor. I suspect that their complaint has more to do with the personality of the occupant of the Woolsack rather than the role itself. Subsequently, perfectly respectable arguments—on which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) touched in outline—have been deployed for adjusting the role of the Lord Chancellor within the constitution. I suspect that a problem has arisen not only because of the character of the last Lord Chancellor but because of how his Department has grown from being simply that of the so-called Speaker of the House of Lords, the head of the judiciary and the judicial representative within the Executive to take on additional responsibilities way beyond those imagined possible or sensible by previous Lord Chancellors. The Department's budget is now measured in billions rather than the tens of millions that it used to be. All those factors, which I wish that I had further time to develop, have informed the way in which this debate has come about.
	The short point that time allows me to make is that I am afraid that this is a cack-handed piece of reshuffling. It has constitutional implications about which the Government appear to be utterly careless. I am afraid that they will reap the whirlwind, and all of us will be disadvantaged by the way in which this matter has been handled.

Jacqui Lait: In starting to sum up one of these debates, it is traditional to congratulate those who have taken part in it. In the current circumstances, I wonder whether the use of the word "traditional" is correct. We have had a debate that started by pointing out the farce of the Prime Minister's reorganisation but that has descended into tragedy.
	We started with the part-time shadow Secretary of State for Wales and shadow Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "Shadow?"] The confusion created by the Prime Minister's reshuffle is such that we are not sure whether or not he is a shadow. The part-time Leader of the House and part-time Secretary of State for Wales started by desperately running out of the Chamber to try to find a list of Ministers, which he has promised will be in the Library by the end of this debate. We look forward to getting it. He could not answer when we pointed out that today's Order Paper makes it clear that Government Departments clearly believe that the Scotland Office is a shadow of its former self. Furthermore, we are wondering to which press release from No. 10 the part-time Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales was referring when he was trying to explain what happened last Thursday and Friday.
	It is a great shame that the part-time Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland has not been present for the debate at all—there were certainly circumstances to explain that, because we understand that he was at the Scottish Affairs Committee—but I am afraid that the said gentleman has added to the confusion about what happened last Thursday and Friday. As we understood it, the part-time Leader of the House said that the Scotland and Wales Offices would remain with the same staff and the same duties. Today, however, in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland said that there would be substantial changes in the staff in the Scotland Office, but that Ministers would talk to the staff first. He went on to say that the Scotland Office is to be a separate department within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Nobody is any the wiser about the impact of all these changes.
	In welcoming the former full-time Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) to the debate—we send her our commiserations on her retirement to the Back Benches—I note that it may be a sadness to her to learn that Friends of Scotland has been rapidly passed over to the Scottish Executive on the ground that there is a clear duplication.

James Gray: Is the confusion in the Government's mind not highlighted by the anecdote that the caretaker in Dover house went straight out of the front door last Thursday and unscrewed the sign that said "Scotland Office"? He took it inside only to be told on Friday that he had done wrong and that he must put it back up again.

Jacqui Lait: That is one of the many elements in this story.

Eric Pickles: It is a screw-up.

Jacqui Lait: I prefer the term "farce" to "screw-up". Farce has accompanied this botched reshuffle.

Dominic Grieve: Is not another bizarre aspect of the reshuffle the fact that we were told at the time that the Department for Constitutional Affairs was set up that it would have some responsibility for driving forward the Government's radical agenda for reforming the criminal justice system even though that does not appear to be within the Department's immediate remit? The Home Secretary then said, "No, it won't have that responsibility. That's our job." However, the Government amendment to the motion commends the Department for Constitutional Affairs because it is
	"focused on improving the criminal justice system".

Jacqui Lait: It will be interesting to see whether the part-time Lord Chancellor manages to win over the Home Secretary, but I suspect that the Home Secretary will win that battle.
	We wish the new Lord Chancellor well—particularly while he is wearing his wig and tights—for the next three years, or is it perhaps 18 months? Or, as the chairman of the Labour party said on the "Today" programme on Saturday, will there be consultation in time for a Bill to appear in this year's Queen's Speech? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out in his excellent contribution, there is concern about the reality of the Government's consultation. I hope very much that, at some point, we will have clarification as to how long the consultation will last.
	Perhaps this botched reshuffle resulted from the fact that, when the previous Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, he said that the Lord Chancellor
	"does not want to be bullied by the Executive".
	Perhaps that is why he is now spending more time with his family. For the health of our democracy and our constitution, we need to know what the Government's proposals are in their consultation papers. Will we see more of Tony's cronies on the judicial appointments commission? Will the Minister tell us when the consultation papers will be published, who will be consulted and for how long?

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Lait: I am very conscious of time, so it must be a wee one.

Tom Harris: I am sure that the obsession of the hon. Lady and the Conservative party with this process is shared by dozens of people throughout the country. When it comes to the consultation on the future of the Lord Chancellor and a possible supreme court, will she make a commitment to taking part? What will be the basis of her submission?

Jacqui Lait: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said at the opening of the debate that we would, of course, take part in the consultation. Because we believe in consultation, there is absolutely no way that I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we will come up with.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the part-time Leader of the House has apparently agreed with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary that, for the first time in decades, the post of Lord President of the Council should not be the prerogative of the Leader of the House, but should be vested with the Leader of the House of Lords? That happened without any consultation whatever with any Member of the House.

Eric Forth: Or with Her Majesty.

Jacqui Lait: As my right hon. Friend says, that also took place without any consultation with Her Majesty. It is yet another example of the farce that this reshuffle has descended into.
	We need to ensure that Scottish and Welsh interests are not downgraded and diminished in this Parliament. It is a great shame that there is every evidence that the Government plan to do that.
	For example, a Wales Office report says that the full-time Secretary of State for Wales and his Under-Secretary sat on 20 Cabinet Committees—

Don Touhig: Twenty-five.

Jacqui Lait: The Minister corrects me. How will the part-time Leader of the House and the Minister find time to sit on 25 Committees? How will the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be able to have serious input on what the Scotland Office does? First we heard that the Scotland Office would be abolished but it now appears that that will not happen. We still do not know its exact status, which was shown by the Committee's confusion.
	Who will be the boss of whom? Who will be the senior part-timer? Will it be Lord Falconer wearing his Lord Chancellor's wig and managing his Department? Will it be the Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales, or the Transport Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland? I imagine that there will be interesting debates around the Cabinet table.
	Hon. Members are left utterly bewildered about how Scottish and Welsh business will be handled. What is the future for questions? Is there a future for the Scottish and Welsh Affairs Committees? Will the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees remain?

Peter Hain: Yes.

Jacqui Lait: I am delighted to hear that, but what is the point of that if—according to one announcement—the Scotland and Wales Offices are to be abolished?
	Who will be in charge of handling the boundary review in Scotland? We must bear it in mind that the boundary commission is abolishing the Secretary of State for Scotland's seat. Will there be a conflict of interest? Will the Secretary of State leave the boundary changes to be handled by his hapless junior Minister or will the unelected Lord Falconer make the decisions?

Peter Duncan: I have something hot off the press that might clarify the status of the Minister who might well be responsible for implementing the boundary changes—we hope that that will happen. The Minister is described as
	"Mrs Anne McGuire MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Constitutional Affairs"
	on the Order Paper, but the now released list of departmental responsibilities describes her as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office.

Jacqui Lait: We have clarification on titles but whether we have clarification on jobs is another matter. Will that Minister make decisions on the boundary commission?
	What will we do when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is wearing his part-time transport hat? He took two of the top four questions on Scottish issues during Transport questions today. He denied debating with himself in the shaving mirror about his answers this morning. Perhaps civil servants from the Scotland Office sat on one side during his briefing on questions while officials from the Department for Transport sat on the other side. I hope that they did not come to blows. His answers this morning sadly gave the impression that he did not understand his Scottish responsibilities.
	Important decisions on air transport are being made. When the Secretary of State made a decision on the west coast main line, was he wearing his Scotland hat or his transport hat? When he reaches decision time on air travel, will he debate with himself the merits of the Scottish case or the case for the United Kingdom and, more importantly, which side will win that debate? How will he decide on the merits of the redevelopment of Waverley station? The station is currently in his constituency but his constituency will disappear.
	How can a part-time Transport Secretary with an add-on Scottish remit best serve Scotland's needs? It was implied earlier that 200 per cent. of his time would be spent on Scotland and transport, but 200 per cent. of 24 hours does not leave an awful lot of time for his family. I hope that he will be able to spend a significant amount of time with his family.
	We need to introduce significant and robust conflict-resolution mechanisms in the Scotland Act 1998. Fault lines in the devolution settlement are being widened, so we need robust and strong mechanisms to resolve the problems that will inevitably arise. I worry about what we heard today and what has been expressed in statements over the past five days. No doubt on the sixth day the Prime Minister will tell us that all is well. I hope that we resolve the problems and get this tragedy out of the way so that we can debate the substance of the Government's proposed changes.

Christopher Leslie: While the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rouses himself to react to the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), it occurs to me that the hon. Lady must be gutted by her performance. She was truly confused and ran out of steam, largely because the Conservatives have no policy on reforming the constitution and improving the way in which we run affairs in this country. Interestingly, their only Member of Parliament with a Scottish constituency, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), decided to make a brief intervention. I think that he has a strong claim in the imminent Conservative reshuffle to the post of shadow Scottish Secretary. We shall have to see whether his astute intervention will do the job.
	Although the middle of the debate was relatively well tempered, we heard a typically process-obsessed, navel-gazing contribution from the Conservatives, who have opposed every measure for change, every advance towards devolution and every move towards a modern and relevant Parliament and Government. Any change gives them scope to feign shock and horror, but beneath their phoney concern lies the opportunism and bandwagon-leaping mindset that led them to defeat so many times and will do so again.

Peter Duncan: In the hon. Gentleman's endeavour to clear up confusion, will he clarify one thing? The part-time Leader of the House said that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office remain with exactly the same staff and exactly the same duties. The part-time Secretary of State for Scotland said Upstairs that the Government will obviously make changes, but that they will have to speak to staff first. Which is it? It is the Government's confusion: sort it out.

Christopher Leslie: I take back what I said about the hon. Gentleman. I now do not think that he has any chance of becoming shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] Well, read my lips, as someone once famously said: the Scotland Office exists, the Wales Office exists and the relevant Secretaries of State hold their civil servants accountable for what they do. What is the Conservative party's attitude to that? Forget about doing the right thing: it opposes for the sake of a press release.
	While the Conservatives are obsessed with process, the Government will get on with substantial modernisation. The changes are right and straightforward. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate our continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public services by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs, to which I am extremely pleased to have been appointed. The new Department, with a new Secretary of State, will be able to focus more effectively on making the courts work on behalf of the public.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his new Department. In strongly welcoming the appointment of Lord Falconer to his new post, which I believe he will do admirably well, will my hon. Friend confirm, because we are talking about extremely important constitutional changes, that there will be the widest possible consultation among the professions and the judiciary before any decision is made on a judicial appointments commission?

Christopher Leslie: I unreservedly welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. He is right. There will be the widest possible consultation. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked about consultation documents, which we will issue before the summer. Many hon. Members will wish to contribute. We want to make the system work better, but we want to make it work better for a purpose. We must have a more representative, more outward-looking court system. That is important.
	I should like to make a few comments about some of the points that have been made, with specific reference to Scottish and Welsh Cabinet Ministers. We are putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution, which naturally leads to an adjustment of the scale of the jobs of Scottish and Welsh Secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), in his excellent speech, highlighted that matter, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in his inimitable way. There is continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House, and they will also undertake other UK functions, undertaking all necessary policy and business matters in the same manner as previously. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for his measured contribution. He said that there is no constitutional impropriety, and nothing that is morally reprehensible, which, coming from the Conservative party, is a useful comment.
	As for the Scotland and Wales Offices, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, and the right hon. Member for Horsham asked specific questions about the organisation of the civil service. They wanted to know for whom civil servants will work if they serve Scottish and Welsh Ministers. There is a significant change, as the Scotland and Wales Offices will now come under the umbrella of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They will have one permanent secretary, and pay and appointment arrangements will be streamlined, stable and simplified. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow specifically asked to whom those civil servants were accountable. The answer is that they are accountable to the Welsh and Scottish Secretaries. There are many precedents for that. For example, we have had a Minister for Women in the Department of Trade and Industry, yet staff serving that Minister are based in the women's unit in the Cabinet Office. There is therefore ample precedent for such accountability.

Richard Bacon: In the light of what the Minister said about the permanent secretary, will he clarify whether there is now only one accounting officer, and whether the old Scotland and Wales Offices no longer have accounting officers? Is that the case or not?

Christopher Leslie: Sir Hayden Phillips, the permanent secretary for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, will be the accounting officer; I hope that is clear.
	Major reforms are needed to secure the correct separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature on the one hand and the judiciary on the other.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Christopher Leslie: A transparently independent judiciary is widely accepted as a laudable aim, even, I suspect, by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We have announced that we will consult on an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, and I am glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) welcomed that. Eventually, we intend to take the selection process for judges out of the hands of politicians, which will reinforce judicial independence. Scotland already has such a commission, and Northern Ireland is about to have one established.

Jacqui Lait: rose—

Christopher Leslie: As the hon. Lady is so persistent, I shall give way to her.

Jacqui Lait: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Scotland and Wales Offices will continue to issue separate departmental reports.

Hon. Members: Oh, a big issue.

Christopher Leslie: To discuss that issue, the Opposition cancelled an Opposition debate on education. I wonder whether members of the public watching our debate will realise that the prospects for a future Conservative Administration hang on the issuing of departmental reports—[Interruption.]I look forward to the next Conservative manifesto.
	I want to talk about the supreme court, because it is extremely important. We will consult on the establishment of a supreme court, rather than having the second Chamber of Parliament as the highest court in the land. Our proposals will take the Lord Chancellor, a politician, out of the final Court of Appeal, and establish a supreme court of appeal separate from the legislature. That move has received wide support. However, the Conservative party is clearly struggling over whether it supports or opposes it, either in principle or in general.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I wonder whether the Conservative party has an official view on the idea of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it would help good order in the House if he indicated whether or not he is willing to give way, so that we do not have several hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Christopher Leslie: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Graham Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend takes seriously the important points made by the Opposition. I am waiting for the question about whether the tea trolley in the Wales Office goes round at 11.20 or 11.25 am. I hope that my hon. Friend has the answer, not least because we dropped a debate on student fees to hear it. Will he return to the trivia of the debate and do something that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House failed to do today—get an answer from the Opposition on whether they are in favour of a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission, and, if they are not, whether they will abolish them, should they ever come to power again?

Christopher Leslie: It is rare for the Opposition to clarify their views on such matters in Opposition day debates. No doubt we will have myriad written parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about tea trolley issues, and I am sure that in due course Hansard will be full of answers to those. [Interruption.] I am assured by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), that the Wales Office has no tea trolley. I am happy to pass on that assurance to the House.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I shall not give way for the moment because in the short time that I have left, I want to speak about the role of the Lord Chancellor in Parliament.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 327.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services.

Community Pharmacies

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on community pharmacies. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
	That this House believes community pharmacies play a vital role in providing for local healthcare needs, with highly qualified pharmacists able to advise on general and over-the-counter medicines and to dispense and to advise on prescription-only medicines; notes that community pharmacies are truly local, with nine out of ten people considering it easy to get to a community pharmacy; and is concerned about any change which might lead to a reduction in the excellent services or accessibility currently provided by community pharmacies.
	I hoped that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be in her place. Is she on her way here?

Phil Woolas: Yes.

Tim Yeo: Good. I shall not make my remarks about her until she arrives. [Interruption.] I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. I begin by offering you my commiserations because your hopes of promotion were not fulfilled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had none, and I got none. I believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to refer to the right hon. Lady.

Tim Yeo: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I offer the Secretary of State my commiserations because her hopes of promotion were not fulfilled. It must be galling not to be considering pharmacies from the point of view of the newly appointed Secretary of State for Health—doubly so when one has been passed over in favour of a Scottish Member of Parliament who has no influence on health matters in Scotland, but whose talents, in the Prime Minister's eyes, are superior to those of every single English colleague.
	The debate has two purposes. First, it gives hon. Members the chance to express their support for community pharmacies and warn against unnecessary or harmful changes to the current structure. Secondly, it enables hon. Members of all parties to show whether early-day motions have any meaning. The motion's wording is the same as that of early-day motion 815. The Opposition are doing the House a service by giving up half their day to allow hon. Members to debate a motion that, I suspect, the Government would prefer us not to consider or vote on.
	By last night, early-day motion 815 had attracted approximately 200 signatures, of which 64 were those of Labour Members of Parliament. I hope that every hon. Member who signed it will vote in favour of the motion at the end of the debate. Last Wednesday, a worrying precedent was set when hon. Members debated early-day motion 572 on post offices and cash payments of benefit to recipients. More than 350 hon. Members from all parties supported the early-day motion. When the Division was called at the end of the debate, however, 128 Labour Members who had signed the early-day motion voted against the motion. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming. Those 128 Labour Members had told their constituents that they supported the early-day motion, and had expressed their concern at the plight of post offices in their constituencies and at the difficulties that elderly and vulnerable benefit claimants will face in receiving cash.

Anthony Steen: Does not this show either that early-day motions are a total waste of time—which they probably are—or that Labour Members will just sign anything, and vote in any way, rather than in support of the views that they have expressed on the Order Paper?

Tim Yeo: It certainly shows that early-day motions might be a total waste of time, so far as Labour Members are concerned. I believe, however, that every single Conservative Member who signed that early-day motion also voted in favour of it in the Division last Wednesday, just as every Member who has signed early-day motion 815 will vote with us in the Lobby tonight.

Keith Simpson: A possible explanation for what happened last week that my hon. Friend might not have thought of is that last week's debate took place just before the reshuffle. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] If we were to be generous to Labour Members, we might say that many of them were driven by the hope that their talents might be recognised by the Prime Minister. Now that the reshuffle is over and those hopes—including those of the Secretary of State—have been brutally dashed, perhaps they will feel that their shackles have been removed. Perhaps they will now be willing to vote with the Opposition on this issue.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend advances an ingenious explanation for the absence of so many Labour MPs from the Division Lobby in support of early-day motion 572. When I tell him that they included the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for West Ham (Mr. Banks), and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the Father of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I ought to persuade the hon. Gentleman to deal with the motion before the House, rather than concentrating too much on last week's motion.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will now have drawn his own conclusion as to the improbability of hope in certain breasts being the determining factor in the way in which those hon. Members cast their votes.
	My concern is that the value of early-day motions is being undermined, that the integrity of Parliament has been threatened, and that some hon. Members are attempting to deceive their electorate. Tonight, however, we have a chance to put that right. Tonight's motion has the very same wording as early-day motion 815, which has the support of 64 Labour Back Benchers. There are, therefore, 64 Labour Members who have the chance at least partially to restore the integrity of the Order Paper and the system of early-day motions.

Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the probable reason that so many Labour MPs have signed this early-day motion is that, like me, they have had upwards of 1,000 people either writing to them individually or signing petitions expressing their grave concern about the threat to community pharmacies? The 1,000 people in my constituency came from Hythe, Brockenhurst and Totton—just three locations—and there could have been many more, had similar petitions been organised elsewhere.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend's constituents are fortunate indeed in their parliamentary representative. He takes up their cause and champions it through his eloquence on the Floor of the House; he will also vote in favour of the motion tonight. We shall see, in the course of the next two hours and 10 minutes, whether the 64 Labour Members are willing to follow his fine example. I hope that they do, because, if they do, they might start to restore the integrity of the early-day motion process. If they fail to do so, the message will go out loud and clear that the signature of a Labour Member of Parliament on an early-day motion is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely when the Conservative party ditched the philosophy that free, unregulated markets had all the answers?

Tim Yeo: I shall come to the substance of the argument in a moment, and I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point with relish. It exposes the fact that, like the authors of the Office of Fair Trading report, he does not understand the difference between community pharmacies and the rest of the retail sector.

James Gray: There is a case in point in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was one of those who signed the early-day motion on post offices but then voted against last week's motion. I do not know whether he signed early-day motion 815 on pharmacies, but if he did I hope that he will vote with the Opposition this evening.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his position clear presently. I have a list of the 64 Members who signed the early-day motion, and I will welcome any interventions that they may choose to make.
	We called this debate because the Government are about to publish their response to the OFT's report on pharmacy services. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what they think of the report. There is a contrast between the swift and decisive response in Scotland and Wales, where the OFT's recommendations have already been rejected, and the uncertainty caused by the lack of any decision by the Government here in London—uncertainty that is damaging to some community pharmacists. It is also puzzling, in view of the large number of Members—again, in all parts of the House—who want the present structure to be broadly preserved, if the views that they have expressed by signing early-day motions can be relied on.
	The key recommendation in the OFT report is that the control of entry regulations for community pharmacies should be ended. The Conservative party believes that accepting that recommendation would damage the existing network of community pharmacies, and would harm the interests of the communities that they serve. We question the need for changes in the present structure, and we are doubtful about the benefits that the advocates of change claim would result from ending the regulations.
	The central flaw in the report, and the flaw in what was said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is the failure to recognise clearly enough that community pharmacies are not just another part of the retail sector. They cannot be treated in the same way as retailers of food and other consumer products. Community pharmacists are qualified professionals with a specialised and important role to play in the delivery of primary health care.

Peter Ainsworth: Would my hon. Friend care to point out to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who made that silly intervention, that it was a Conservative Government who established the 1987 regime in the first place?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend's knowledge of the history behind the regulations is impressive. I am happy to tell him that I knew that as well.
	There is an interesting point here, on which the Secretary of State may be able to shed some light in due course. The restrictions were introduced by the Conservative Government in 1987—or rather, I think, 1986—at the behest of the Treasury, which feared that the lack of any restrictions on entry to the pharmacy world was causing a haemorrhage of expenditure from the national health service budget.
	I wonder whether one reason why the Government are taking their time to make up their mind about what they want to do is that on this issue, as on so many others, the Secretary of State is not her own master. Even had she received the promotion to the Department of Health for which she hoped, she would still not be her own master, because we all know that the dictator of domestic policy in this Government is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He may well fear the financial consequences of this change, and that may well be why there has been silence so far on what the Government's policy is.

Humfrey Malins: In both the rural and the urban parts of my constituency, there is widespread concern among small independent pharmacists about the prospect of being knocked out of business by the giant supermarkets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vulnerable will suffer rather than the rich? Will not the poor suffer, and the poorer communities in particular?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend has anticipated much of what I was going to say, as I would have expected him to. He is absolutely right. Perhaps the only comfort for those who are running community pharmacies in his constituency, and for the vulnerable constituents who will indeed suffer, is the fact that they are represented by a Member who takes such a close interest in their concerns—and who also supports a party that now places at the centre of its agenda the need to help the vulnerable and ensure that no one is left behind. Of course, in view of the appalling muddle that pervades the whole of Government, that same party will soon be taking the decisions affecting my hon. Friend's constituents.

Peter Luff: But will my hon. Friend reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in his fine intervention? It is not just a question of remote rural communities; those who live in urban areas may actually be the most threatened. I am thinking of communities such as that served by the fine community pharmacy of Badham's, in Bengeworth. If anything undermined the viability of that pharmacy, a relatively underprivileged community would not have the access to pharmacy services that it deserves.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this issue affects urban areas as much as rural ones. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but when I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency a couple of years ago, I think that he drew my attention to the merits of the pharmacy that he mentions and its crucial role in the local community.

Peter Luff: indicated assent.

Gregory Barker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tim Yeo: In a moment; if I may, I should first like to make a little progress.
	Perhaps it is time to touch on the substance of the OFT report itself, which acknowledges that the current system has a great many merits. Paragraph 1.15 confirms that four out of five people live less than two thirds of a mile away from a community pharmacy. The report in fact uses the phrase less than "500 metres", but my hon. Friends would be happier if I used other terminology. It also confirms that almost one person in two live within one third of a mile of a community pharmacy, so not surprisingly, nine out of 10 people consider it easy to get to a pharmacy from their home. Three out of four family doctors have a community pharmacy within easy walking distance, by which I mean less than a quarter of a mile away from where their practice premises are situated.
	The message is clear: consumer satisfaction is high, a fact that my own constituency experience confirms. In two decades as a Member of Parliament—an anniversary that was completed last Monday—I have scarcely received a single complaint about the inaccessibility of community pharmacies. On the contrary: there is tremendous support for them in South Suffolk, as evidenced by the petition raised in support of the Moss pharmacy in Hadleigh, which was signed by hundreds of my constituents. Such support was also evidenced in a letter that I received from Clare parish council, which states that
	"our local pharmacy provides an invaluable service to our local community not only in providing prescriptions and other medical needs but also in the information and advice given by the pharmacist . . . if it was no longer viable for it to trade due to losing business to other providers our small town would be hugely affected. Not only would this outlet be a great loss to the elderly and young families especially but this would also have a knock on effect to other shops in the town as the pharmacy currently has many customers not only from Clare but from the several smaller villages surrounding it."

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: In a moment.
	A representative of the Clare Business Association wrote to the Department of Health earlier this year, saying:
	"The town has a population of 2,200 but above all it serves a rural area including some small and large Villages . . .
	Our Pharmacy is not just an outlet for medicines . . . the Chemist has like the Doctors become the family friend who they can trust confide in, and above all give a personal service.
	Shopping at Supermarkets is one thing, exchanging your prescription is another . . .
	Think of Families with small children, elderly people, those that don't drive . . .
	Stop the Government's proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies."

Gregory Barker: Like many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, I have received petitions carrying hundreds of names of constituents who are concerned about pharmacies. In particular, the elderly in Bexhill are very worried about the possible consequent withdrawal of the prescription delivery service. They are particularly vulnerable because they often do not have access to the big out-of-town stores that could replace pharmacies.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. [Interruption.] I note the belated arrival of the Secretary of State for Health—the man whose merits are such that even though he is handicapped by being a Scottish Member of Parliament, he is considered superior to all the other would-be candidates for the post of Secretary of State who were lined up in Cabinet last week.

Hywel Williams: Returning to the issue of costs, although this Government may have been silent about it, the same cannot be said of Jane Hutt, the Welsh Assembly Minister, who said that
	"the removal of these regulations could increase costs to the NHS in Wales resulting from the administration of alternative systems to protect access to pharmaceutical services under the NHS."
	The Government have been silent, but the Labour party in Wales has given the game away.

Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As the debate continues, interest in what the Secretary of State will say in her reply is growing every minute.
	In my experience, any threat to community pharmacies provokes a positive outburst of support. In the past, concerns have been expressed occasionally—in my constituency and in others—when a family doctor practice seeks permission to become a dispensing practice. If the patients or customers of an existing community pharmacy believe that granting permission will damage their local community pharmacy, they readily say so in robust terms. In respect of today's debate on the Office of Fair Trading report, however, community pharmacies and dispensing practices are on the same side, sharing the same concerns about what might happen.

Roger Casale: Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including myself, who have received representations about community pharmacies are making representations to the Secretary of State. However, this is an Opposition day debate, which is usually used to attack Government policy. What we are debating now is not Government policy, but simply a recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading. When is the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) going to start debating Government policy on this matter?

Tim Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is Government policy, there is nothing to stop him voting with us later this evening. The fact remains that we do not know what Government policy on this matter is. We have scheduled the debate in a timely and opportune way to give the Secretary of State the chance to clear up the doubts and resolve the anxieties felt by many community pharmacies around the country.

Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that today's Opposition day debate is timely, because the Secretary of State can hear who the stakeholders are and what a sense of community really means in real constituencies? The Labour party espouses the virtues of stakeholders, community, partnership and consultation, so the Secretary of State has an ideal opportunity to hear at first hand from those of us who have presented petitions and made representations exactly what the people want and value.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
	Hansard cannot reflect the balance of attendance in the House, so now is the right moment to draw attention to the fact that, for the time being, the Conservative party has roughly 40 per cent. of the representation that the Government have in the House, but there are four or five times as many Conservative Members as Labour Members attending this debate, which is so important to every constituency represented in Parliament. [Interruption.] Furthermore, every intervention on the Conservative side has been from hon. Members speaking up for the interests of their constituents, but interventions on the Government side—somewhat few and far between—have consisted largely of cheap debating points.

Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate provides an opportunity for the Government to identify some of their blind spots? Rural issues are certainly one of their blind spots. Many villages have pharmacies, post offices, pubs and so forth, but the village pharmacies are being threatened.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. I recall visiting his constituency to take part in a conference, which I believe was entitled "Listening to Britain". He may recall that one of the main issues was the anxiety felt by many rural communities about the representation of community pharmacies in their areas. However, it was rightly mentioned earlier that the debate is not about rural communities alone. It certainly goes to the heart of the concerns of many rural communities, but it is equally a matter of concern in many urban areas.

Roger Gale: The point that my hon. Friend makes has been brought home to me this week, following the receipt of petitions with 2,500 signatures from Payden's and Baxter's and Ferris—not just from Margate in my constituency, but from Garlinge and Birchington, which are urban villages with the community pharmacies right at their core. Is not the Office of Fair Trading report simply about retailing, and nothing whatever to do with the health of people who use the health service?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The trap into which so many people—including, I fear, the authors of the Office of Fair Trading report—have fallen is in failing to understand the difference between the general retail industry and the role played by pharmacies.

Richard Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government White Paper entitled "Pharmacy in the Future" says in the foreword:
	"As one of the primary health professions in the NHS, pharmacy has a vital part to play in delivering the plan. Pharmacists are an integral part of most people's experience of NHS care, whether in the community or in hospitals."?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to cite that White Paper, and today's debate will show which side of the House speaks up for the community and recognises all the elements that are necessary for a successful health service.
	I could find nothing in the OFT report that suggested that deregulating the sector further would improve access to community pharmacies for that part of the population that uses those pharmacies regularly. Indeed, the fear is that the opposite would be the case. If community pharmacies migrate away from high streets and disappear inside supermarkets, the likelihood is that access will become harder, not easier. As Philip Graham, the owner of two independent community pharmacies in my constituency, in Long Melford and Lavenham, wrote to me in April:
	"The customers who use and need pharmacy services are not those naturally targeted by the grocers, or who are traditional users of those outlets."
	Four out of five people over the age of 75 take at least one prescription-based medicine. The main users of pharmacy services are the elderly, as well as the infirm and the socially disadvantaged. Those are the very people about whom the Conservative party is concerned. They tend to be the less mobile, and so the convenience that supermarkets do indeed offer many people is not a convenience at all for many pharmacy customers. The flaw in the OFT report is that it considers those people only as consumers, not as patients. A community pharmacy is not a village store or a high-street grocer.

Keith Simpson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as the pharmacist in the market town of Reepham in my constituency pointed out, many rural and urban pharmacies are part of a strong support system for our general practices. They are already under enormous strain. If community pharmacies are removed, it will have a knock-on effect on GPs. My constituency already suffers from a grave shortage of GPs thanks to the Government's policies, which the Secretary of State for Scotland—I am sorry, I mean the Secretary of State for Health—will be able to address.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I intended to make. He is right about the complementary role that community pharmacies play in the delivery of primary health care. In defence of the new Secretary of State for Health, let me say that he is one of the diminishing number of Cabinet Ministers who has only one job to do. He is not a part-timer. Nor is he moonlighting—something of which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often accuses Conservative Members. Let us hope that with the attention that the Secretary of State for Health is able to give the job he will address the shortage of doctors in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	Community pharmacies do not compete in the way that supermarkets do—on the basis of price. Indeed, in the case of prescription medicines, which account for the vast bulk of medicines sold in pharmacies, there is no price competition from the point of view of the consumer. What is traditionally the strongest single argument in favour of a more deregulated market—the downward pressure on consumer prices that a deregulated market can exert—simply does not apply to community pharmacies. Even the price of the over-the-counter medicines, which account for about a fifth of the medicines sold by community pharmacies, is likely—in the opinion of the OFT—to fall by only between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. That is a marginal gain to set against the real disadvantages that Conservative Members have set out.
	Surprisingly, the OFT report does not convincingly explain how the present regulations constitute such an insuperable barrier to entry into the market by supermarkets. On the contrary, the report confirms that since 1990—during which time the existing restrictions have been in force—no fewer than 450 new supermarket pharmacies have opened. They now constitute about 4 per cent. of the total network.
	One argument that the OFT deploys in favour of more supermarket pharmacies is that they would have longer opening hours. Clearly, there is evidence to support that. Does the Secretary of State for Health want to say something? I should be happy to give way. Does he wish to intervene? No, he has nothing to say. I am glad that he is listening.
	There is evidence to support the claim about longer opening hours, but the report presents no evidence that they are a priority for users of community pharmacies. The clear priority for them, especially for the people who are most vulnerable, is that the quality of service currently offered by community pharmacies should be maintained. There is great anxiety about the possible consequences of accepting the OFT recommendation.
	The British Medical Association has stated that
	"what little gain it may provide to the consumer in terms of cheaper medicines is insufficient to offset what may be lost. The most vulnerable and the least affluent members of society—the elderly, infirm and housebound—will lose the most if community pharmacies are forced to close."
	An interesting show of unanimity between the medical profession and part of the private sector backs that up. The Boots company has said:
	"Accessibility to pharmacies would decline as provision moves out of town to supermarkets; and the closure of pharmacies would have a detrimental effect on the viability and vitality of town centres . . . there is no evidence that this will deliver significant or sustained price reductions across the range of"
	over-the-counter
	"medicines . . . The Government strategy for enhancing the role of the pharmacist and relieving pressure on the NHS will be disrupted, due to staff shortages, earnings dilution and market instability."

Anthony Steen: I think that I am right in saying that, if the Government accept the OFT report in full, primary legislation will be required. Is that correct? If so, that will give us a whole year in which to harass the Government about the unsuitability of their response to the report.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend presents the House with a mouth-watering prospect. Harassing the Government on this issue for a whole year would no doubt mean that the Secretary of State and I would have to joust many times across the Floor of the House. I am extremely attracted by that possibility, but we will have to seek advice from the Government about whether primary legislation would be needed.

Anthony Steen: It would.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend assures me that it would.
	The truth is that a pharmacy is much more than a retailer of medicines. It is a source of advice for patients about health issues and the use of medicines. Not surprisingly, supermarkets rely more heavily on locum pharmacists. For that reason, the development of a relationship between patient and pharmacist is less likely to be achieved. In those circumstances, service could be less personal: only a third of supermarkets provide home-delivery services.
	Caution should be our watchword before we rush in to accept the OFT recommendation, which will mainly benefit younger and more able-bodied people—the very categories for whom the services of a pharmacist are least likely to be needed. The Government amendment refers to
	"the need for a balanced package of measures".
	I hope that the Secretary of State will explain what that phrase means.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is too late.
	The Government's close links with the big supermarkets are well known. Their reluctance to defend small post offices is a scandal. Their refusal to support village shops shows contempt for the needs of rural areas. Their refusal to introduce honesty in food labelling hurts British farmers. Their policy on genetically modified crops is concerned more with the demands of multinational companies than with the need to protect the environment.
	Every one of those shabby climbdowns bodes ill for the decision that they must take in relation to the OFT report. I hope that, for once, principle rather than expediency will be the basis of the Government's approach. I hope that they will think of local communities before donations to party funds, and that they will at last put patients' interests first.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"agrees that the OFT report on the "Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" provides a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry regulations on consumers and competition and highlights the need for the present regime governing pharmacies to be updated; favours change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that community pharmacies play, especially in poorer areas; and supports the need for a balanced package of measures which plays to the strengths of community pharmacies and enhances the role of pharmacists in the modern NHS.".
	First, I am delighted to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on his appointment. I know, as do all Labour Members, that he will do an outstanding job. Likewise, I welcome the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), to her new post.
	I welcome, too, the belated recognition from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that there are limits to markets, especially in health care. That is quite a conversion from the party that gave us the iniquities of the internal market. I welcome the concern expressed by the Opposition for the health of our communities—not something that we heard from the Conservatives when they were devastating our coalfield communities with their onslaught on the mining industry.

Greg Knight: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she moved an amendment to our motion? Unusually, but not uniquely, the Opposition motion does not attack the Government; it is a statement in support of community pharmacies. Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the motion? What have community pharmacies to fear from her plans?

Patricia Hewitt: We are improving on the Opposition motion. I have made plain, and will continue to do so, my support and the Government's support for community pharmacies. The amendment reflects the approach that we will take, not merely as we consider the report from the Office of Fair Trading but, more important, as we implement the programme for pharmacies—the modernisation and strengthening of community pharmacies that the Department of Health has put forward.

Mark Todd: My right hon. Friend has indicated that this is an opportunity neither for conservativism or Conservativism, but a chance to work with pharmacists on an agenda for change; for example, by looking into the costs and inefficiencies of patient packs, a subject of great concern to many pharmacists.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. In a moment, I shall come to some of the many improvements that can be made to build on the work that community pharmacies are doing already.
	In contrast to the rather aggressive attitude adopted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, I hope that all of us, on both sides of the House, can agree on the vital role that community pharmacies play. We all use them; we all rely on their advice. They help people to lead healthier lives and to live longer. They play a vital role in our communities and are a lifeline, especially for our most elderly, frail and vulnerable citizens, and all of us—without the need to make partisan points—should support them.

Brian Cotter: I thank the Secretary of State for those words. May I offer an example of the importance of local pharmacies, which confirms that we are all concerned about these serious issues? Last year, Milton pharmacy in my constituency paid out £1,355 on taxi services to supply free delivery of prescriptions to old people and the very ill. I have a copy of the bill. The pharmacy provides an excellent service and I hope that the Secretary of State's awareness of that will help to inform her decisions.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point and the way in which he made it. That example illustrates exactly the kind of service that should be much more widely offered. Home deliveries, especially for elderly or isolated patients, are exactly the sort of service that we want to develop.
	Like the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I, too, have met pharmacists from my constituency who are extremely concerned about the possible implications of the OFT report for their services and their businesses: for instance, Mr. Mattock, who runs a pharmacy just down the road from my constituency office, serving a diverse and disadvantaged ward in my constituency; and my constituent, Mr. Mehta, who is a pharmacist in a Leicestershire village. Both of them are wholly committed to serving their patients and their communities, and of course both of them brought me petitions like those received by almost every Member.
	I want to make it clear to our community pharmacists that we value their contribution. We value their role as trained clinicians. Above all, we understand the contribution that they make to deprived and remote communities.
	We will do nothing that jeopardises that contribution. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made plain in his excellent quotation, we spelt out in the Department of Health document, "Pharmacy in the Future", that we want to increase and enhance the contribution that pharmacists make as clinicians and professionals in the national health service.

Anthony Steen: The Secretary of State says that she wants to improve local pharmacists' facilities, but does she plan to increase the £18,000 a year that the Government pay for the NHS contract to each pharmacy? Will that sum increase? If it does, pharmacists will be delighted, but they will not be so pleased if she gets rid of it.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is discussing with pharmacists a new contract and funding through primary care trusts to ensure that they can innovate and that pharmacy services are responsive to the local needs of their community, because the needs of rural communities will be very different from those of deprived inner-city areas. As "Pharmacy in the Future" says, pharmacy is one of the primary health professions in the NHS; it is an integral part of most people's experience of NHS care, whether in the community or in hospital. It was very clear from the responses that the Department of Health received to that document that the public believe that more use could and should be made of pharmacists' skills and expertise.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend has hit exactly the right note. When I met my local pharmacists to discuss their concerns about the OFT report, they said that they very much welcomed the Government's proactive agenda, but they also want to take a very much more active role in respect of prescriptions. They argue that millions of pounds could be saved with a different prescription policy, particularly in relation to repeat prescriptions. We should be following that up, rather than having a sterile debate on whether pharmacies should continue regardless.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the very important point that the public and pharmacists are telling us that much more could be done to use pharmacists' skills and expertise to deliver better health care to patients. Only the Conservative party says that nothing should change—typical of Conservative Members. The programme for pharmacies sets out exactly how we will continue to improve pharmacy services. We need to ensure that they can meet patients' changing needs, ensuring that people can get the medicines and pharmaceutical advice that they need easily and, wherever possible, in the way and at the time and place that they choose.
	We have heard very little about patient and consumer choice from the Opposition. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking steps to ensure that patients can obtain more medicines over the counter from pharmacies. We want patients to be able to get their medicines out of hours, when that is what they need. We want more patients to be able to receive delivery of their medicine at home. We want pharmacists to be responsible for far more repeat prescriptions, as that will make life simpler for patients and doctors.

Mark Francois: It has already been mentioned several times in the debate today that pharmacists play a very important role, not least in releasing pressure on already hard-pressed general practitioners. My constituency has the fourth highest ratio of patients to GPs in the entire country. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that this is an extremely important point? Has that got through to the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as to the Department of Health, where it was appreciated to begin with?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes, of course we are aware of that important point and, through the Department of Health's programme for pharmacies, we will also ensure that pharmacists give patients much greater support and advice on using medicines. We need to reduce the amount of illness caused by medicines not being used correctly, and we certainly need to cut the amount of medicines that are simply wasted because patients do not begin or, more commonly, do not complete their courses. All of that will mean better care for our patients and a greater role, not a lesser one, for community pharmacists.

Roger Gale: Does not the right hon. Lady understand that the Opposition agree with much of what she is saying? The problem is that what she is saying is not compatible with shipping out pharmacies to out-of-town supermarkets and putting community pharmacies out of business, thereby denying access to local outlets that will provide precisely the back-up, advice and service to the vulnerable, the elderly and young mothers with children that she seems to be talking about.

Patricia Hewitt: I think that the hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. I hope that by the time I have finished my speech, I will have persuaded him to vote for our amendment. He should not be hostile to the development of pharmaceutical services in supermarkets, all of which are approved by primary care trusts when that is appropriate. I recently visited friends in a village in Suffolk where there have been no shops of any kind for many years. The local supermarket has recently opened an excellent pharmacy service complete with a treatment room and qualified pharmacist within the supermarket. For the people living in that village and others around it, that would be the nearest community pharmacy. He should therefore drop his prejudices and look at the situation on the ground.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me make a little more progress.
	Against that background of our programme for pharmacies and our commitment to pharmacists, we are considering the report from the Office of Fair Trading. I welcome that report, which is a useful contribution to public debate and understanding. The hon. Gentleman referred to the history of the control of entry regulations which, of course, date back to 1987. What he did not know, however, or forgot to mention, is that the situation in 1987 was very different: in those days, payments to pharmacists were being made on a cost-plus basis, with higher payment being made to the smaller pharmacies for each prescription dispensed than to larger ones. The result, not surprisingly, was to encourage more and more pharmacies to open up that were almost entirely dependent on NHS funding and prescriptions. That is why NHS costs kept rising, which is why the Treasury, in 1987, rightly insisted on changes being made. The control of entry regulations gave local health authorities the responsibility of deciding whether new pharmacies were needed, and in doing so dealt with the problem of the perverse incentive, which was driving up costs unnecessarily.
	Since then, the cost-plus remuneration system has given way to a reformed payment and reimbursement system. As I indicated a few moments ago, the Department of Health is now negotiating a new pharmacy contract, which will come into effect next year, and will provide new opportunities, particularly for the primary care trusts, to introduce services such as minor ailment clinics, repeat dispensing, supplementary prescribing, home delivery services and some others on which we have touched.

John Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in my constituency, which has prevailed for 20 years, is absurd? On a Sunday evening, if someone requires a repeat prescription ventalin inhaler the only way to get it is by going to accident and emergency or calling out a GP. Does she think that that needs attention in the review?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of out-of-hours dispensing is one of those being considered in the Department of Health, with pharmacists, to ensure that as part of the new pharmacy contract and the new arrangements with PCTs, we deliver better services to consumers and patients who often need those services 24/7, 365 days a year, and not simply at times when pharmacies are usually open.

Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be worth while for the contract negotiations also to focus on some of the rather perverse incentives in the current contract, including the fact that any gain that is made by more efficient purchasing is effectively clawed back by the Government in a subsequent year? That is an intensely frustrating and unpredictable process for many pharmacists.

Patricia Hewitt: That is an extremely important point, and I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Health will take note of it. She may wish to comment on it when she winds up.
	The role of the OFT is to promote competition and consumer choice. Just as none of us in the House should have any doubt about the importance of community pharmacies, so none of us should be in any doubt about the importance of competition and consumer choice to our wider economic success. When the Conservative party was in power, it talked about competition, but it has taken this Labour Government to modernise a competition regime that was increasingly inadequate and left us trailing behind other economies. With Labour's Competition Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002, we can be proud of giving our country a competition regime that is now among the best in the world.
	Greater competition has already brought benefits to all of us who buy over-the-counter medicines. When, in 2001, the OFT used the new powers that we had given it under the 1998 Act to challenge the old system of retail price maintenance, prices of leading branded over-the-counter medicines fell by up by 50 per cent.—in some cases within a couple of hours of the OFT announcing the opening of its inquiry. That was good news for patients and consumers. I would have hoped that Conservative Members would welcome it. Above all, it was good news for low-income families and low-income elderly people.
	I have no doubt about the contribution that the OFT can make to our deliberations on how we improve consumer choice. I welcome the fact that, as a result of our reforms, it can look specifically at the impact of the Government regulations that may be holding back consumer choice and competition.

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Patricia Hewitt: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that he will want to welcome those reforms.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State anticipates my question, and I am grateful to her for that. She is responsible for the oversight of the OFT's work, and I am sure that she will agree that it is desirable that it conducts, as it intends to, at least two investigations each year—and certainly next year—into the impact of Government regulations on markets. She understands, as I do, how competition policy works. Competition has to be constrained when public services are involved and competition policy bites only to the extent that undertakings do not provide services of general economic interest—public services, in the European Union jargon. Therefore, why did not the Secretary of State or her colleague in the Department of Health make sure that, when the OFT examined this market, it did not confine itself to the examination of the market impact of the control of entry regulations, but considered the public service obligations that had to be met by community pharmacies? Why did it not construct its report in that wider context?

Patricia Hewitt: Let me make it plain that it is the OFT's job to examine competition, not to advise us on health policy. On the matter of the OFT's investigations into the impact of Government regulations, we do not leave it to the OFT to make the final decision as we now quite rightly do in merger cases. It is for the Government to make the policy decisions on public services, including the national health service.
	I know very well—this debate has already reflected it—the deep concern that there is inside and outside the House that simply abolishing the control of entry regulations might lead to widespread closures of community pharmacies, particularly in rural or deprived areas. That concern is reflected in today's report from the Select Committee on Health. I am grateful to the Committee's members for their speedy inquiry. We will consider their report and conclusions before we take our decisions.

Nigel Dodds: The situation in Scotland and Wales was mentioned earlier, but will the Secretary of State welcome the decision made by her colleague the Minister for Work when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for health? He was not a devolved Minister but a direct-rule Minister, and he unequivocally rejected the Office of Fair Trading recommendations for Northern Ireland on 26 March. He cited the detrimental impact that the proposals would have on the infirm, vulnerable and less well off. Would she care to follow her colleague's example?

Patricia Hewitt: Health Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations made their decisions, which was absolutely right. We shall take our decision when we have completed the consultation and deliberation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and I announced before the end of March.
	As I was saying, the OFT's job is to examine competition, not to decide health policy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued forcefully in a lecture earlier this year, there are limits to markets, especially health care markets. There are certainly limits to competition among pharmacies, and I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk that pharmacies are, on average, dependent for about 80 per cent. of their income on revenue received for dispensing NHS prescriptions, the price of which is fixed by the Government. Labour Members are clear that pharmacists are clinicians and not only shopkeepers.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and I said on 26 March, we will come forward before the summer recess with a balanced package of measures. We favour change to open up the market and to improve quality, access and choice for patients—hon. Members of all parties have supported those points—without diminishing the crucial roles that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. We have already consulted widely and I am grateful to the thousands of people, including many hon. Members, who have given us their views. We shall consider especially the impact of any change on rural communities in line with our commitment to those communities and also ensure that all policies take account of their specific needs and circumstances. The hon. Member for South Suffolk got rather hot under the collar on that subject and I am sure that his failure to mention the fact that rural post office closures have almost stopped was a mere oversight. Closures are occurring at the lowest rate since 1995 thanks to the measures and financial support that this Government have put in place.

Tim Yeo: What the right hon. Lady says does not take account of the fact that the direct consequence of the Government's policy to change the way in which benefits are paid is that two fifths of rural post offices' income has been taken away.

Patricia Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly impatient with any change at all. He clearly pays no attention to the fact that the present system of giro books is acutely vulnerable to fraud and extremely expensive to administer. However, that is all that we can expect given that we inherited the system from his Government. The measures that we have implemented to ban any avoidable rural post office closure and the financial support that we are providing for rural post offices, linked with our support for shops in our rural villages, are helping to strengthen our rural communities.
	I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to peddle the idea that the only way to get people to use rural or urban post offices is by chaining them there with their benefit books. He should welcome changes that the Post Office's new management is making to ensure that people with a range of bank accounts may do their banking at post offices and gain other services and benefits when they do so.

Roger Casale: I welcome the sensitive and balanced recognition that my right hon. Friend is giving to the need for sensible regulation. I have consulted Paresh Modasia, who is a leading community pharmacist in my constituency, and he and other community pharmacists are keen to work with the grain and the Government. They recognise the need for change, not least keeping pharmacies open later in the evening and developing their role in the new NHS. Will she confirm again that her Department is keen to work with representatives from community pharmacies to develop dialogue so that we can find out how to achieve the best outcome for everyone?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. There is a full dialogue and partnership between the Department of Health and community pharmacists, building on the proposals in "Pharmacy for the Future" that are being developed in discussions on the new contract. All of that will inform the policy decision that we make on the particular issues raised by the Office of Fair Trading report.

John Mann: The success in implementing the Government's updated drugs strategy requires community pharmacists to provide greatly increased supervised consumption of methadone and other substitute drugs. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of the community pharmacy in the success of that strategy?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the way in which we will deal with the menace of growing illegal drug use is by mobilising community pharmacists to supervise much more effectively the treatment of drug addicts within the community. That is one of the many issues that we are taking into account as we consider how to move forward.

John Horam: Does the right hon. Lady recognise the vital point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that two things are going on simultaneously for which she is responsible—the closure of sub-post offices and the possible closure of pharmacies? Those two together, both in suburban areas like my constituency and in rural areas, pose a threat to small local shopping parades and villages. The worry is that there will be less accessibility to services overall.

Patricia Hewitt: I understand those concerns, but the hon. Gentleman ignores what I just said and the steps that we have taken to protect and reopen post offices and shops in many of our rural communities. He assumes that changes will lead to the closure of community pharmacies. We will ensure that that is not the case. That is why we made it clear in our statement on 26 March that we will produce a balanced package to achieve the goals, which I hope he shares, of better quality access and choice for patients and a stronger, not a lesser, role for community pharmacists.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Hewitt: No, I intend to bring my remarks to a close.
	The proposals that we will produce before the summer recess will also be the subject of full consultation and debate within the House.
	As our Government continue to improve the NHS, we will ensure that pharmacists are recognised as full contributors to primary care services, as the first port of call for patients and consumers in discussing everyday health problems, and as important partners in reducing health inequalities and in dealing with some of the most serious health problems that our communities face. The Government are increasing investment in the NHS by a third over the next three years. For all the crocodile tears that the hon. Member for South Suffolk shed, we know that the Conservatives would cut investment in health services by 20 per cent. What would that do for community pharmacies, hospitals, doctors and nurses?
	We will make the investment that our health service needs and promote the reforms that it needs. We will make that investment and those reforms in the interests of patients and communities. In doing so, we will strengthen the vital role of our community pharmacists. I commend the amendment to the House.

Sandra Gidley: Unlike the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I welcome the opportunity to debate community pharmacies. The subject is of great interest to many of my constituents and fellow professionals. Perhaps I should explain that I am fairly unique among hon. Members in that I was a community pharmacist.
	Clearly pharmacies are a health issue and should not come under the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I welcome the thrust of the Conservatives' argument, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) over-egged the pudding.
	It was with utter disbelief that I listened to his "emperor's new clothes" speech, showing the Conservatives' new, cosy, caring attitude. Personally, I found that hard to take, but he did the health service a big favour by highlighting how the drugs budget could be reduced. Instead of prescribing emetics, a doctor could just give a patient some over-the-top passages from the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrating the Conservatives' caring nature, and the desired result would be achieved.
	There is a lot of consensus on this issue on both sides of the House. Many Members have presented petitions either in the Chamber or to the Department of Trade and Industry, and today the Select Committee on Health, on which I serve, has produced a report on the issue, on which it was easy to secure all-party consensus. Our earlier debate concentrated on the Cabinet reshuffle, one aspect of which, sadly, has not attracted any attention. Five of the six Ministers in the Department of Health have been replaced, and I wish the new Minister with the brief for pharmacies well. I looked up the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) to investigate the history of his interest in health, and found that he had a doctorate in isotopic abundances in soil development—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) points out that she has responsibility for pharmacies. I urge her to tell the information unit at the Department of Health, which clearly thought that somebody else did. There is confusion in the Department about who has responsibility for the matter.

David Hinchliffe: There may be confusion in the Department of Health, but I think that the Conservatives chose today's debate. Is the hon. Lady surprised that there is one Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber, making a total of three Tories present, which is disgraceful for an Opposition day debate?

Sandra Gidley: I agree entirely. I referred earlier to the emperor's new clothes and crocodile tears, and the Conservatives' absence is a true reflection of how much they care about the deprived.
	The need to preserve access to local health services is of fundamental importance to our constituents and, for many, that means preserving access to local pharmacies. I referred earlier to the fact that I was a pharmacist before I came to the House, and I should state at the outset that I am probably the villain of the piece, as for a few years I was that hated figure, the supermarket pharmacist. Prior to that, I had experience in small and medium-sized family businesses, and did locum work for independent pharmacies. I have therefore worked in pharmacies of almost every size.
	It is invidious to depict the supermarket pharmacist or a pharmacist in a large Boots as someone who does not provide a full service—a point that I shall return to later. All pharmacists receive the same training, and are highly qualified. The problem is making sure that they provide the range of services that are needed. I fully accept that there is probably a positive bias in favour of small, independent pharmacies that provide a wider range of services, which is often the only way that they can add value to their business.
	I want to deal with the historical context of the problem. As has been mentioned, pharmacies increased at a rate of approximately 130 a year in the early 1980s, which was unsustainable. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly said that the Treasury responded to that growth—the big problem was the method of payment, which favoured small, low-volume pharmacies.
	Nobody has mentioned another problem, which made that change easier to achieve at the time: the problem of leapfrogging. There was a firm, which I shall name—Lloyds Chemists—that used to open branches between an existing pharmacy and a doctor's surgery and cream off half the business. Many independent pharmacies were threatened, and many people in the pharmacy profession felt that something had to be done about Lloyds, so it was relatively easy to accept the control of entry proposals at that time. The villain of the piece then was not supermarkets, but Lloyds. We do nobody a favour by pretending that only supermarkets could benefit from a relaxation of entry controls. The large firms on the high street, such as Boots and Superdrug, are also looking to expand, and their expansion poses just as much of a problem to existing pharmacies.
	Some of the knock-on effects of control of entry were not predicted. The pharmacy profession noted that Lloyds was not stopped in its tracks. Where it was prevented from opening, it simply bought out all the very small firms. I used to work for a small family business with five shops. The owner died, and there was a piece about the business in The Pharmaceutical Journal. People phoned the family asking to buy the shops, not realising that that gentleman had three sons who were pharmacists and who clearly wanted to continue the family business. It was an aggressive time, and Lloyds is now one of the largest chains in pharmacy.
	The other knock-on effect was that the cost of the average pharmacy business increased dramatically. I know that because at one stage in the late 1980s, I considered opening my own pharmacy.

Andy Burnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper while the debate is in progress?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair, but the Chair would not normally approve. I had not noticed.

Bill Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Sandra Gidley: The cost of the good will of a pharmacy business increased dramatically, making it almost impossible for somebody without financial backing to open an independent pharmacy. Such a person had to be very cute about a new opportunity opening up—there were people who regularly trailed housing estates to see where a doctor's surgery might open, to try to get in there. Another problem was that many contracts were sold to supermarkets or other large companies that could offer large premiums. That had a detrimental effect on pharmacy provision overall. Jobs advertised in The Pharmaceutical Journal are much reduced and are all with medium to large firms.
	Because supermarket pharmacies were offering so much money, nobody else could get in. In my locality there were two independent pharmacies. Both wanted to sell to an independent purchaser, but both were forced to sell to chains because nobody else could afford to pay.

Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that every time a small local pharmacy sells on to a superstore, the service is removed from the most dependent elderly people, people without transport and those who cannot get to the superstore, who depend on the pharmacy not only for their prescriptions, but for the wider primary care service that pharmacies are now supposed to provide?

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but the two pharmacies that I referred to still look like small pharmacies. They are just branded with a firm's logo. However, there is no longer 24-hour access to the person above the shop who, if somebody knocked on his door, would go down and provide the emergency inhaler mentioned earlier. That provision has gone. If people do not own their businesses, it is much more difficult to find any who are motivated to provide delivery services. Generally, such services are not paid for by the Department of Health, so they represent an added value that a business subsidises out of its profits.
	The new contract has been mentioned. I know that many pharmacists are apprehensive about it because they fear that they will be given the same amount of money, but asked to do a lot more. Will the Minister give some reassurance that extra funding will be available if extra services are being provided? I am sure that that would put many people's minds at rest.

Anthony Steen: The hon. Lady will remember that I initiated the first Westminster Hall debate about this matter on 12 March this year, to which she made a very useful contribution as a pharmacist. As I said then, pharmacists in my constituency are concerned about the £18,000 contract that she mentioned. I believe that every pharmacist has such a contract for national health service prescriptions. Does she agree that that is what we want the Minister to deal with? I got the impression from the Secretary of State's speech that the Government were going to play around with that £18,000 and that some pharmacists will get more, but many will get less. Does she agree that it is crucial that that amount is high and that, if it is not, community pharmacists will not be able to survive?

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention, and he has a point. I am not necessarily saying that £18,000 is the level that must be set for only the dispensing part of the business. Clearly, he is right that a sustainable level is needed, but the concern is that some of the roles that pharmacists take on require much time and energy and cannot be funded out of any small amount that is left over, so new money is needed.
	The buck is often passed back to the primary care trusts. Many hon. Members attended the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee dinner earlier in the year. The Minister who attended mentioned that the money was available for PCTs to give out, but there was a groan throughout the audience. It came not from pharmacists, but from people at the primary care trusts, who saw it as yet another demand on the money, which could go only so far. We accept that there is more money, but it is still difficult to give it in all the right places.
	I admit that the status quo is not perfect. Everyone who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Health agreed that some change was necessary, but there appeared to be an emerging consensus that distribution should definitely take into account local health needs. As part of the reforms, we need to establish exactly what services should be available at every pharmacy, in addition to the core business of dispensing.
	Various services can be available. Some pharmacies provide oxygen services, supervised dispensing of methadone and monitored dose systems for old people's homes allowing people to keep a check on their medications, and delivery, prescription collection and 24-hour services. I have provided all those services in my time, and I provided all but the 24-hour availability service in some role in working for a supermarket pharmacy. However, I fully accept that provision in supermarket pharmacies is patchy.

John Mann: On supervised consumption of methadone and other blockers, and in relation to drugs, does she accept that the problem of supermarket pharmacies is that the people on supervised consumption will often have a track record of shoplifting and will have been banned from supermarkets where they have previously stolen? That can also be a problem in some of the larger and wider product chains such as Boots.

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was going to refer to that problem later, because I have witnessed it myself. Where dispensing provisions have been set up, addicts have sometimes been nicked on the way out for trying to steal, say, a bottle of whisky. That leads to a real battle with the management of the store, who will not allow those people back in.
	The report by the Office of Fair Trading suggested that consumers benefit because more people have access to low-priced medicines in supermarkets. The Secretary of State mentioned that earlier. The OFT estimated that the consumer will save £20 million to £25 million on pharmacy-only medicines—that is, medicines that are available only in pharmacies. However, there is a flaw in that argument. The Secretary of State rightly said that there was an immediate drop in prices, but evidence to the Select Committee showed that they have climbed back up. One can get cut-price Calpol from time to time in Boots, but the range of products on offer is extremely narrow and represents only a small percentage of what people buy.
	Some people are tempted to travel to buy medicines cheaply. That takes away trade from small independents that simply do not have the purchasing power to compete.

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady makes a compelling point. It was reinforced by the British Medical Association, which said that what little gain there might be to consumers from deregulation—for example, through cheaper general sales list items—would be insufficient to offset the wider cost.

Sandra Gidley: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I shall demonstrate.
	The OFT suggested that the pharmacies that will close are those in the immediate environment of a supermarket. I think that it is completely wrong in that assumption, as did many of the people who gave evidence to the Committee. The pharmacies under threat are those in villages and inner-city areas and those that serve housing estates. They teeter on the brink of viability. Co-op chemists and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee have independently concluded that there is likely to be a cut of at least 10 per cent. in business, although that estimate is fairly conservative. That could lead to the closure of several pharmacies.
	It would be easy, but overly simplistic, to think, "People are going to the supermarket anyway. What's the problem?" The problem has already been alluded to. Different groups of people are involved.

Angela Watkinson: Two regular customers who wanted a cough remedy consulted the pharmacist in one of my community pharmacies. He was alarmed by the cough, decided to test the level of carbon monoxide in their blood, and found it to be unnaturally high, whereupon he advised them to go home and have their gas appliances tested. They were found to be in a very dangerous state. Does the hon. Lady think that such service would be available in a large pharmacy or supermarket where there is not that degree of familiarity between the pharmacist and customers?

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Lady raises two points. First, she describes a service that is not widely available. I do not know whether it is being provided because of a local decision or the interest of that pharmacist, but such provision is generally patchy.
	Secondly, she suggests that supermarket pharmacies are anonymous. I admit that, before I worked in a supermarket pharmacy, I completely agreed with that—in fact, I put off working in one for years because I did not relish the anonymity. It was only because it fitted in with my children—something that will be appreciated by the Secretary of State in her role as Minister for Women—that I bit the bullet and decided to work there. I found that it was not as I had suspected. People came in to say hello when they were buying their bread and milk. A supermarket pharmacy can have that aspect, too. That does not mean that I want everybody to go to their supermarket pharmacy, but it is not the complete villain of the piece that it has been painted as in some quarters.
	There are some good supermarket pharmacies, but in some parts of the country, they struggle to provide regular cover. That is not good for anybody in the community because it means that people do not get continued care. A balance must be struck.
	There are different groups of people. The mobile population can jump into cars—or even 4x4s, if my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) does not ban them. Having to drive a further mile for medicine is a minor inconvenience to that group. However, most of us entered politics to speak for the very people who suffer most: the elderly, the ill, people who cannot afford a car and those in deprived communities.

John Mann: Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of the Government's NHS local improvement finance trust—LIFT—policy? In my constituency, it means that three mining villages will get brand new doctor's surgeries in the next year. Every one will have a new community pharmacy as part of the premises: three new pharmacies in three mining villages.

Sandra Gidley: Sadly, coming from leafy Hampshire means that I have little practical experience of NHS LIFT. However, I shall deal with the point about pharmacies in doctor's surgeries and doctors dispensing later.
	Even if those who cannot afford a car can afford the bus fare, they cannot find a bus, which is a rare sight in many areas nowadays, thanks mostly to the Conservative party. The OFT report is based on competition and market forces, and could benefit the haves and deprive the have-nots. I seriously believed that such politics had come to an end when we said goodbye to Margaret Thatcher. It would appear that I am wrong but I wait to be reassured by Ministers. So little information is forthcoming, even from Health Ministers, that it is difficult to be reassured that financial arguments will not win the day.
	The OFT also claims that increased competition would lead to pharmacists offering new services. Let us consider the 1980s when Lloyds Chemists were the villain of the piece. They offered not new services, but extended hours. All pharmacists at Lloyds were asked to work from 9 am to 7 pm without a lunch break. That decision prompted me to work in the supermarket; such hours were clearly not sustainable for those with young families. Working those hours may not sound like a problem, but if pharmacists make a mistake in dispensing medicines, it is not a case of, "Oh well, never mind." The consequences for someone's health could be serious and it is therefore important to remain alert until the end of the day. Lloyds chemists did the industry no favours by increasing hours. Clearly, nobody wanted to work for a couple of hours in the evening.
	The OFT report also claims:
	"in areas where there are no NHS dispensing pharmacies, dispensing by GPs offers a further mechanism to ensure appropriate access to prescribed medicines."
	It has already been said that dispensing doctors oppose the proposals. The OFT report ignores the fact that pharmacies are not simply about dispensing. We will lose access to other services, and the hours of availability, during which people can get their medicines, will decrease because surgeries are not manned all the time.
	Although dispensing doctors have improved greatly over the years, there is no compulsion on them to employ a qualified person to do the dispensing. It is called "doctor dispensing", but the doctor does not usually go anywhere near the process. There are no controls such as those over supermarket pharmacies, and dispensing in doctor's surgeries is more expensive.
	We should ask for an on-site pharmacy in surgeries, but with a qualified pharmacist. There is no problem with siting pharmacies in doctor's surgeries, provided that the correct health professionals are also there, and that it is done more holistically. Problems arise through unqualified staff and reduced hours. The service is not as good as it should be.

John Mann: I fear that there is some confusion in the hon. Lady's argument. My local GP's surgery in North Leverton has a dispensary built in. When I go in, along with all the pensioners and others, I see the doctor in one room, the receptionist is nearby, and on the left-hand side next to the reception is the dispensing chemist, who is often the receptionist as well. Having all the services on the one site is a perfect scenario for the elderly and vulnerable.

Sandra Gidley: I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who is confused. He has just illustrated the problem by saying that the dispensing chemist was often the receptionist as well. I have to say that qualified pharmacists are not usually receptionists. I would be grateful if he would go back to this doctor's surgery and ask what qualifications those people have. They might have some, but from what he has told me, it sounds as though they are not qualified pharmacists. He mentioned the accessibility problem, which has been solved, but we need to link this up with proper pharmacy provision.

John Mann: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sandra Gidley: No, I want to give other people a chance to speak. It is important that I give the Chairman of the Health Committee some time, so I shall cut my speech short. I have taken a great many interventions, and I must now come to my conclusion.
	As I said earlier, the crux of the matter is not who is the good guy and who is the baddie in all this. It has been noted that 79 per cent. of the population have a community pharmacy within a kilometre of their home—I am not ashamed to use metric measurements—and those people have access to a range of services. If that figure falls as a result of deregulation, we will have failed the public. I am not interested in protecting existing monopolies, but in preserving access to a local pharmacist, with all the benefits that that involves. We need to be more prescriptive about what services are provided; that could presumably form part of the contract. We also need to ensure that if a pharmacy is unwilling to provide an enhanced range of services, its contract could be reviewed in some way. The most important thing is to provide services to patients, not to protect vested interests. These services must be funded, and we now have a golden opportunity to change things for the better. The OFT route is not the right one, however.
	On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I will support the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight. May I suggest to Labour Members that they should be wary of the weasel words in the Government's amendment? If they truly want to show that they have no faith in the OFT report, they should walk through the Opposition Lobby tonight.

David Hinchliffe: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks with great authority on these issues and has recently made an important contribution to the Health Committee inquiry into this matter.
	As this is the first—partial—health debate since the reshuffle, I should like to take the opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). It is good to have a Yorkshire voice on the Health team. I also look forward to working closely and warmly with the other new members of the team. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I am bereft of my Yorkshire Whip now that he has gone to the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall miss him, although whether he will miss me is a different matter. We have had a very good relationship over the years, and I wish him well in his work.
	I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I deeply respect his decision to be with Ruth and the children; he has many achievements to his name of which he can be very proud.
	I find myself in an interesting situation. This is the first occasion that I can recall during my time in Parliament on which I could quite easily vote for either the Opposition motion or the Government's amendment. I am quite happy with both, and I have no difficulty with either position because they both encompass clear concerns, aims and objectives that we can all share.
	I find the Tories' position—a significantly increased role for the market in health care—interesting. On an issue such as this, however, when their constituents are expressing concerns about the possible disappearance of local pharmacies, they are actively arguing their case in relation to an OFT report that the Government have yet to consider.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hinchliffe: No; other hon. Members want to speak, and I want to give them a chance to make their contributions. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points when he winds up the debate.
	Today, the Health Committee published its report following a brief inquiry, and I shall base my speech on it. I feel strongly that, historically, we have failed to exploit the potential of a number of key elements of the NHS, primary care being a good example. I pay tribute to the Government's attempts to devolve more power to that sector: I think we shall see the benefits in the longer term. Similarly, we have failed for many years to exploit the potential of community pharmacies.
	My constituency contains a number of first-class community pharmacies and pharmacists. I am especially privileged to have as a constituent Gill Hawksworth, who last week was elected president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. She has badgered me long and hard about the potential for community pharmacies to play a much larger role in the NHS. The time that I spent with her in her Mirfield pharmacy taught me a great deal.
	I also thank Irene Gummerson, a pharmacist at the Warrengate pharmacy in my constituency, for allowing me to spend a morning in her pharmacy and to see exactly what is done in pharmacies. I learnt a great deal there as well. I have also spent time at Boots in my constituency, and learnt much about what it does as a major player in community pharmacy. Finally, let me thank Phil Bratley, who has been secretary of the local pharmaceutical committee, for his support and advice.
	The current regulatory regime was introduced in 1987, and it is right for us to review it on occasion. The Government deserve praise for their detailed examination of the greater role that could be played by community pharmacies, but the OFT review is rooted in economic and competitive arguments rather than arguments about health, as has already been pointed out today.
	The Health Committee inquiry was undertaken because of many Members' anxieties about the possible consequences of the OFT report. On one day we took evidence from a range of key players, including the OFT, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, various providers and, of course, Asda, which would be a major player in the event of deregulation. The evidence made it clear to me that there was broad agreement about the fact that the number of pharmacies would increase initially following deregulation, but that in the longer term many pharmacies in rural and deprived areas would be threatened by a loss of dispensing revenues to new pharmacies, especially in bigger stores.
	We reached a number of conclusions. First, we concluded that, as the Secretary of State has said, the control of entry regulations need reform and modernisation. In many parts of the country, including parts of my constituency, people have no access to prescriptions out of normal hours. We established that community pharmacists support modernisation, and they would plainly want to be key players in the process of ensuring a more positive service.
	The evidence suggested a strong likelihood of closures in the event of acceptance of the OFT report. That would have a particular impact on poorer communities and especially on elderly and immobile people, some of whom would lose their local services. A calculation in our report, which I have no time to quote, shows the exact percentage of community pharmacies that could be lost.
	The Committee also felt that the OFT's projected savings were questionable and did not stand up to detailed analysis. In particular, a reduction in community pharmacies is highly likely to lead to people wanting to access more expensive elements of the national health service, such as GPs and casualty units, to get the service and the prescriptions that they need. We felt that there is a need for an enhanced role for primary care trusts to plan the provision of pharmacy services, to ensure that local pharmacies do provide extra services. Indeed, I believe that the Minister agrees that that is the way forward.
	I hope that the Government will take note of the points made in our report and in this debate. The key conclusion that I reach is that market forces are not a proper basis for health care provision. I make that point to the Opposition, but I also make it to the Government.

Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), on the day when the Committee produced an intelligent and thoughtful report on a subject of huge interest to all of our constituents. I received petitions containing some 3,000 names, all of which I forwarded diligently to the Department in the earnest hope that they will be taken seriously and that the concerns expressed will not only be listened to but acted on when the Government take their decision on the OFT report.
	Let me come straight to the point made by the hon. Member for Wakefield about the Conservatives' position. It is quite simple: where we see that market forces will benefit patients, help to raise standards and help to lever funds into the health service, we are keen to use them. However, where opening up to market forces—of course, we are talking about a system that was put in place by a Conservative Government in the 1980s—reduces access to health care, as in this case, we do not think it such a good idea after all. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will have more to say about that issue later.
	At a time when we often hear that people are not interested in politics, it is worth noting that an issue such as this can really grab people's attention. People care very much about their local pharmacies, and the strength of the public's response is evidence of that. Indeed, one welcome outcome of the Government's otherwise unwelcome prevarication about the future of community pharmacies is that it has heightened public awareness of the valuable contribution of pharmacies to communities throughout the country. That has enabled this important industry to set out its stall, which it has done extremely well.
	The Office of Fair Trading report makes a reasonable case on behalf of the industry, particularly on the issue of access. As we have heard, the OFT says that 90 per cent. of people find access to their local pharmacy easy to achieve. It also states:
	"The UK is currently well served geographically by pharmacies."
	That part of its analysis may be correct, but we Conservatives believe that it has come up with the wrong prescription. The changes might not affect access dramatically in the first instance, but they will in the longer term, and the Select Committee report endorses that view; more immediately, they will affect ownership. Small, family-run businesses will be at the losing end of a commercial battle with the large supermarkets. Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco have clearly said that if deregulation goes ahead they will dramatically increase their involvement in this sector. So the debate about community pharmacies is not only about the provision of service; it also touches on the wider issue of the tension that exists between communities and corporations. That is a familiar debate.
	Broadly speaking, I support open entry into markets and I am wary of protectionism, but competition is not a virtue in its own right. It may often have virtuous consequences, but its benefits must be weighed against its potential impact on society, individuals, communities and the environment. Competition ceases to be a virtue where the local is sacrificed to the multinational, the trusted and familiar is ditched in favour of the new-fangled, and the community is engulfed by the corporate.
	With the benefit of hindsight, few would fail to see that, before it was checked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the growth of out-of-town shopping centres had a huge and adverse impact on town centres throughout the country, weakening social cohesion and encouraging car dependency. Few people now applaud the way in which the growth of supermarkets has led to the steady decline of corner shops. Social cohesion has already suffered enough dereliction in the name of progress. The Office of Fair Trading proposals would, if implemented, only make matters worse.
	The case for throwing the network of community pharmacies to the winds of competition is fundamentally flawed for two principal reasons. First, the OFT proposals would deal directly with only 5 per cent. of the total market, but might have enormous effects on the market as a whole, especially on access to NHS prescriptions. Secondly, pharmacies and pharmacists are a key part—perhaps the most undervalued part—of the NHS. That is what makes them different from other commercial businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) touched on that point in his opening remarks.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the viability of community pharmacies would be enhanced if their role in the NHS were enhanced—for example, by giving them prescribing and consultation rights?

Peter Ainsworth: I greatly agree with my hon. Friend. Community pharmacies already play an extremely important role within the NHS, but, I believe, in common with other hon. Members, that that role could be further expanded. Indeed, under the existing regulatory regime, put in place by the Conservative Government, local community pharmacies wasted little time in expanding the range of services that they offered. They have been quick to react to changing circumstances, to move into new housing developments and, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out, into supermarkets. They have shown a welcome degree of flexibility.

Bob Spink: Would my hon. Friend add to his two excellent reasons a third—namely, the protection of the most vulnerable people in our communities, who rely disproportionately on local services?

Peter Ainsworth: I was about to come on to that point and I agree with my hon. Friend. Providing advice on medicines, handing out prescriptions and dealing with drug-related illnesses are very different specialties from selling washing powder or baked beans. We are dealing with a particularly sensitive and vulnerable section of the community. Particular skills are required to deal with them and the normal rules of competition cannot appropriately be applied. Only the most blinkered obsessive for competition could fail to see that that is the case and to act accordingly.
	People are fearful of losing their community pharmacies. They particularly fear losing the personal touch that they get when they walk into their local chemist's. I received a letter from Mrs. Carol Bacon, the manager of a pharmacy in Caterham, who said:
	"I know many, many of my customers on personal name terms and frequently advise them (free of charge) on all kinds of health matters".
	Mr. White, of Payden's in Oxsted in my constituency, said:
	"In my own branch we know all customers personally, giving advice, collecting prescriptions from the local health centre, operating a late night service in line with health service hours and being available for any urgent out of hours prescriptions."
	The support of those people, and others like them, in my part of the world and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends is testament enough to the strong emphasis that communities and individuals place on having a reliable community pharmacy at their disposal in their neighbourhood.
	The Government seem to be dimly aware that the OFT prescription is flawed—hence, I suspect, the delay in reaching a decision, and the curious ambivalence of the press release that they put out on 26 March and the amendment that they have tabled today. The press release states that the Government favour
	"change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poor and rural areas".
	I note that the word "rural" has disappeared from the motion. It appeared in the press release but is not in the amendment. I do not know whether we should read anything into that.
	The emphasis on poorer and rural areas—it also appears in the Select Committee's report—is no doubt laudable, but it is important to recognise that pharmacies also play a crucial role for people who do not live in poorer or rural areas. It is not just people in poorer or rural areas who fall ill. People also fall ill in the leafy suburbs and market towns. In many cases, those who rely on their local pharmacies are the most vulnerable—the elderly, the frail and children. The socio-economic mix of the area in which they live is not relevant to them when they need easy access to pharmacy services.
	The NHS should treat people equally on the basis of clinical need, not on the basis of geography. I hope that the Government will not cook up a scheme that makes an arbitrary distinction between disadvantaged areas and the rest. The most important factor in this debate is the disadvantaged people who have to go to their pharmacy in the first place—and that has nothing to do with geography. People catch colds and grow old in suburbia, too.
	Smallfield, in my constituency, is not particularly poor or rich, nor is it particularly rural. It is a growing village of mainly 20th century housing, and is typical of many communities across the country. Twelve years ago, Andrew Jackson set up the Hogarth pharmacy in Smallfield, to public acclaim. He runs a good business and provides an amazingly wide range of services. He has six staff and receives huge support from the local community. He wrote to me to express his concern for the future. He said:
	"Deregulation of the pharmacy contract would lead to an increase in competition for 4 to 5 per cent. of my trade. This situation could close me—so the 85 per cent. of my trade that is so important to our community would be lost to a less accessible and more inconvenient pharmacy . . . If we go, what will the elderly do? What will the young mothers do? What will the disabled do? What will the unemployed with no expendable funds do? Where will my customers go? How will they get there?"
	Those are the questions that the Government need to answer before swinging the axe of competition at that vital part of the national health service, and vulnerable communities and individuals across the country.

Andy Burnham: As one of the few who has been present throughout the debate, unlike some Opposition Members, I can say that a lot of brass neck has been on show. Conservative Members have talked about the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable in their communities, but it is a shame that they showed no regard for those people and communities when they were in office. I do not know how they have the nerve to claim to be speaking up for those communities. Conservative Members should be ashamed of the brass neck that they have displayed today.
	In the short time available, I want to say a few words about my most recent visit to a community pharmacy. A few weeks ago, in the recent recess, I was in charge of the children. That happens only rarely. I received an emergency call from my son's nursery asking me to come and pick him up straight away. The problem was very serious—he had nits.
	Before my colleagues start scratching and moving away from me, I must explain that I am using this example to illustrate the fine services that community pharmacies provide. I visited the Lowton pharmacy in my area, where the pharmacist spent a long time coaching me in the use of a fine-toothed comb, and about the need to get all the nits out of my son's hair. We were very grateful for that, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that there is no danger that he will be infested.
	In my experience, community pharmacies offer an absolutely excellent quality of service. One of the premises in the OFT report that needs to be questioned is that the lack of competition in the market means that the quality of service provided is too often patchy or poor. That is not so: most community pharmacies around the country provide an excellent and attentive service to the communities that they serve.
	When considering the control of entry system recommended by the OFT, we must try to define how the public interest is best served. Setting aside the specifics for a moment, I believe that we are presented with two options: a planned system under the control of health bodies that provides a spread of outlets according to health need; or a system of unregulated entry to the market, with special measures to protect access where markets fail. The chief benefit of the first option is that it would guarantee access across the country, whereas the second option is based on the premise that the lack of competition denies people the benefits of low prices and better-quality services.
	That brings us to two key questions, on which other hon. Members have touched already. Is there a conflict between the interests of consumers and patients? Are those interests the same, or should they be separated?
	The OFT performs a valuable function in challenging existing practices and norms. Its work is normally based on the assumption that we are all demanding consumers, mobile and able to move our business around to find the lowest price and the best service.
	Under the existing system, it is true that costs may be imposed on businesses and consumers, but are they worth paying, in the light of the wider benefits that they bring to society? Although the assumption about mobile consumers may be relevant to other markets, the community pharmacy market is very different, for three key reasons. First, 80 per cent. of the market's value comes from one customer, the NHS, in the form of prescription traffic. Secondly, the products that this market deals with are frequently essential to the people who need them. They are not a matter of discretion, and they can be required at short notice, and urgently. Thirdly, the majority of customers in the market are also the most vulnerable and least mobile members of society—the oldest and sickest, the people on the lowest incomes, and people with children. When we consider any changes to the current system, it is the interests of those people, the biggest users of the service, that we should bear most clearly in mind. For those people, ease of access is vital.
	Without doubt, the OFT's analysis contains much of worth, but figure 4.4 of the report shows that localness and convenience are cited by 86 per cent. of respondents as the main reasons that they choose a pharmacy to get an NHS prescription fulfilled. Indeed, the report states:
	"The degree of local access to pharmacies in the UK is currently good, with the majority of consumers finding it easy to get to a pharmacy from their home or from their GP's surgery."
	Some people may argue that that is a justification of the current system in itself and that, in a market where consumers value access and local service most, access is incredibly good across the country. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the system was introduced for a different reason—to control the prescribing budget in the NHS. Can we achieve the same benefit of providing the service where it is needed, while also doing more to promote quality in the system? That is the key question.
	Finally, one element in the OFT research troubles me. The research assumes that the pharmacies that close when new entrants to the market open will be those that are closest to supermarkets. I do not believe that that is true. People who use supermarkets tend to come from within an area that has a wide radius of at least five miles. In my constituency, for example, I believe that it is the outlying pharmacies that could be threatened by the removal of the controls of entry. That needs to be considered.
	My constituency has a large town at its centre; it is a former mining area where rates of chronic illness are higher than the national average and many families are in the lowest income groups. There is low car ownership and public transport services are poor. Areas such as Leigh will lose a lot from the abolition of the current system, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) pointed out, constituencies such as ours stand to gain the most from the delivery of a much improved community pharmacy system, which is more accessible and provides people with a higher quality service.

Chris Grayling: In anticipation of a speech from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I welcome her to her new position. We are surprised by the scale of the changes at the Department of Health; the hon. Lady will have a lot to do during a difficult and busy time for the Department. I look forward to debating with her.
	This has been an interesting and important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) began it effectively, speaking forcefully about the role of community pharmacists and the importance of pharmacies in the communities that Members on both sides of the House represent. He challenged Labour Members to support our motion, as well as the early-day motion that many of them signed, to send a further message to both the Government and pharmacists about the importance that we attribute to the work of pharmacists for our society.
	The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made what can only be described as a balanced speech, in keeping with her current policy. She talked in glowing terms about community pharmacists, but then referred to the competitive context for the industry. I greatly hope that, when we hear the Government's final verdict, there will not be a sting in the tail for our community pharmacists. Given the interest displayed by hon. Members in this issue, will the Minister of State give us an assurance in her winding-up speech that, when the Government eventually publish their policy decision, they will make a full statement to the House?
	We heard an authoritative speech from the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who brings considerable professional expertise to the subject. However, her speech was spoiled by the fact that she complained about over-the-top comments from the Conservatives while making over-the-top comments herself. I was surprised to hear her say that community pharmacists who did not take on extra responsibilities should risk the loss of their contracts. That would be a great shame. The work of our community pharmacists goes well beyond the call of duty and well beyond the terms of their current contracts, so I would not want them to lose those contracts.
	The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made a valuable and insightful contribution. I pay tribute to him and to his Select Committee for the report that they published this morning, which is a valuable contribution to the debate that will help to inform the Government's decisions when they are eventually taken.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made a valuable contribution. He spoke in particular of the threat to small family-run businesses. On the basis of his constituency experience, he described the extent of the personal service and commitment offered by community pharmacists to their customers, which went far beyond the call of duty and the normal requirements of their job.
	Lastly, we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). He may talk about brass neck, but I remind him that a Labour Government are considering changes to a system introduced by a Conservative Government that has provided proper protection to our community pharmacists.
	The future of the community pharmacy is crucial for communities right across the country. Local town and village centres alike are under threat from the Government in a way that we have never seen before. Local post offices are disappearing as part of a programme to close a total of 3,000 outlets, after five years of the Government's gross mishandling of the Post Office.
	The current proposals pose risks to another cornerstone of our local communities. All over the country, millions of people, especially the elderly, depend on the chemist's shop for the drugs that they need, as well as for a word of friendly advice and assistance. Without those shops, many elderly people would struggle to reach the larger, more distant outlets that would inevitably take over.
	The hon. Member for Wakefield asked about the free market. The free market has a clear and important place in our society, but some parts of our local economy serve a social need and we jeopardise them at our peril. The Opposition would be deeply concerned if the Government made proposals that would lead to a reduction in the excellent services or accessibility currently provided by our community pharmacies.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Labour Government, with all the zeal of a new convert to the free market, listen disproportionately to the voice of big business—the multinationals and the big players—and that the voice of the legion of small community businesses will go unheard?

Chris Grayling: It is very much my hope that, when we hear the Government's eventual verdict, that proves not to be the case. I hope that there is no sting in the tail. We want this issue to be resolved. The OFT report has been rejected already by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and in Northern Ireland. A substantial majority of Members have very clearly set out their views on the issue. Most of us have submitted petitions signed by thousands of people, representing the views of our local communities and saying that we do not want these changes to happen. It is time that the issue was laid to rest once and for all—time to give back stability to our pharmacy industry.
	We have heard from hon. Members this evening that the OFT concluded from its work that removing restrictions on entry into the community pharmacy market would give greater choice to consumers. Of course, there is a strong argument that some people, such as hon. Members—professional, mobile people who are able to collect prescriptions on Saturday mornings when we do our shopping—would benefit greatly from more supermarket pharmacies, but such policy changes should not be directed primarily towards people like us. Will the elderly and young families without easy access to transport—perhaps the family car has been taken to a place of work during the day—still be able to gain easy access to pharmacies? Such things will be much less certain if these changes come to pass.
	The ability of small, local pharmacies to withstand the pressures that deregulation and competition would bring lies at the heart of the debate. The message that I am getting from my own constituency—other hon. Members are getting the same message from theirs—is that local community pharmacists believe that their business will disappear if the supermarkets open new outlets and, as a result, local services will disappear although people need them.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: I will not give way now because I only have a couple of minutes left.
	We are not talking about a free market in which lower prices will lead to growing sales and competition will improve and increase service standards for all. We are dealing with a tightly regulated and restricted market, where smart business practices cannot increase the size of the available cake. Local pharmacists derive the vast majority of their income—80 per cent. in many cases—from their work dispensing on behalf of the NHS, so they are much more like sub-contractors than retailers. They provide a service to our health service; they are not a part of the retail market, which is the point that the OFT investigators missed.
	The danger is that, if a major supermarket opens a local pharmacy, the prescription business that it takes from other pharmacies will come straight off their sales. The risk is that we end up moving around the pieces of the cake and that the loser is the local village or town centre and the local pharmacy, but the ultimate losers are the elderly and those without transport, who will find those services less available to them. It is extraordinary that the OFT report does not seem fully to recognise that risk.
	The report suggests that abolishing the control of entry rules would not lead to a substantial reduction in the number of pharmacies, but that is not the case, as I know from my own constituency, where several local pharmacies would disappear if one supermarket in particular opened a pharmacy. That view was reinforced by the evidence contained in the Select Committee report this morning. The Select Committee's verdict was quite clear: community pharmacies will disappear if the control of entry regulations disappear as well.
	Of course, the risk is not just to pharmacies. In many rural areas, there are no local pharmacies; instead patients receive their drugs through dispensaries in their local GP practices. Britain's dispensing doctors are as vulnerable to such changes as community pharmacies, and the loss of their dispensaries in rural areas with little public transport could be disastrous for the elderly.
	Of course, pharmacists are a vital part of our health service. They are a core part of the Government's health strategy and part of the NHS plan. They are highly professional, experienced people, with considerable medical knowledge and expertise to use on behalf of the NHS. Local pharmacies could take pressure off GPs and other parts of the NHS by providing the first port of call for minor ailments more often than is the case today, but we will not be able to reap that possible benefit if we lose neighbourhood pharmacies.
	Our community pharmacists are an unsung part of our health service. They are health care professionals, not retailers. They have skills that have historically been underused. They are also a vital support to millions of elderly patients. They are a cornerstone of local shopping parades and local shopping centres, particularly at a time when the great Post Office disaster is robbing so many of those centres of their local post office branch.
	If the Government get the decisions on this issue wrong, they will do untold damage to communities around the country and to people who depend on the services that those community pharmacies provide. The message from the House should be clear: we value our community pharmacies and we do not want to lose them.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Rosie Winterton: We have been discussing an extremely important issue today, and community pharmacists and patients have been ill-served by the churlish way in which the main Front-Bench spokesman opened the debate and approached what is clearly a matter of concern to many of our constituents. His attitude is in marked contrast to that of some of his colleagues, particularly the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom I thank for their support and welcome. Their contributions were much more thoughtful than that of the Opposition's main spokesman.
	I completely understand the conviction and passion with which Members have spoken in support of community pharmacies, and I know that many Members will have personal experience of the excellent work done by pharmacists, the advice that they give, the services that they provide, and the confidence and trust that patients have in them, as was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).

Brian Cotter: I very much support what the Minister said about the Conservative Front-Bench. Notwithstanding that, will she take on board the serious concern expressed by the British Medical Association, the Patients Association and the Health Committee about the report? We are looking for a response from the Secretary of State, which will be critical, and we are looking for that soon.

Rosie Winterton: Certainly. As I was saying, I am sure that we all have relatives who have benefited from the personal touch of community pharmacists.
	Right hon. and hon. Members have raised many points in the debate today. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) brought her experience as a pharmacist to the Chamber, and spoke particularly about the issue of pharmacy services in supermarkets. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for his welcome to me and for his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I thank him for all the work that he does on the Health Committee and the work that has been done today in terms of the publication of the report on pharmacy services. It is an excellent report, which has been of great benefit to me in the short time that I have been in this job. I have been able to read about some of the background and to consider the way in which the report acknowledges that much of the evidence that was submitted suggested that reform of the current system of control of entry may be necessary, while at the same time calling for reforms to take account of the wider role of pharmacies within the NHS. I assure members of the Committee that their report will be studied extremely carefully.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said, the OFT report provided an extremely useful analysis of the current market and highlighted the need for reform of the present regime. As many Members have pointed out, however, the service provided by community pharmacists cannot just be seen in the context of competition.
	I would completely endorse that approach, and the report also needs to be seen in the context of our firm intention to see an increased role for community pharmacists in providing services to NHS patients, in using their skills and talents to better effect and in helping patients get the very best from their medicines.
	Much of our approach was set out in our "Pharmacy in the Future" programme, which was published three and a half years ago and continued by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who is now Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he worked with all those involved to take the policy forward.
	Many hon. Members have asked for examples of how services might be improved. The local pharmaceutical service is a key example of how services might look in the future. They will not only help to deliver an improved service for people with extra needs—especially the chronically sick and disabled—but will allow pharmacists to extend the type of work that they cover. We certainly want pharmacies to work more closely with GPs and other prescribers, and the new pharmacy contract and the potential new GP contract, along with new primary care trust initiatives, can all provide opportunities for the minor ailment clinics that hon. Members have mentioned repeat dispensing, supplementary prescribing and even independent prescribing. These are all issues to explore, as is increasing training so that pharmacists can become supplementary prescribers and are soon able to prescribe medicines at NHS expense in partnership with hospital doctors or GPs.

Rosie Winterton: Our clear intention is for pharmacy to be recognised as a full contributor to primary care services, the first port of call for patients and consumers in discussing everyday health problems and a key driver in helping to reduce health inequalities. Those principles will frame our response, a response that delivers a balanced package of measures, promoting quality, choice and competition, but in the context—let me re-emphasise this—of the wider health policy objectives. It is a package that recognises pharmacy's place and ensures that it makes a full contribution to a 21st-century health service.
	In the next few weeks, we will publish our response to the OFT report, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier. Secondly, we will publish the new draft framework for the new national pharmacy contract. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee is about to canvass its members on the outline proposals and we will be discussing with the committee later this year the new remuneration regime to support that. Our aim remains to see the framework in place by April 2004. Thirdly, we will publish a consultation paper that will build on the vision set out three and a half years ago for pharmacy. It will take stock of progress and put forward new ideas and new concepts for the future of community pharmacy. We will certainly, as requested, give the House every opportunity to debate these proposals.
	The Labour Government have increased investment in the NHS by a third over the next three years. Despite everything that the Opposition have said today, the Conservative party would cut investment in the NHS by 20 per cent. This Government believe in a health system based on need and not ability to pay, and in a health service for all and not just a privileged few.
	I understand some of the concerns raised today, but I can assure the House that the Government want to see a community pharmacy service that is high quality, convenient for patients and makes full use of the skills and professionalism of community pharmacists. There will be reforms but those reforms—

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House agrees that the OFT report on the "Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" provides a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry regulations on consumers and competition and highlights the need for the present regime governing pharmacies to be updated; favours change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that community pharmacies play, especially in poorer areas; and supports the need for a balanced package of measures which plays to the strengths of community pharmacies and enhances the role of pharmacists in the modern NHS.

SALTASH TUNNEL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Colin Breed: I welcome the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has been on and off the agenda for many of my constituents for the past 15 years. A little background history might be appropriate.
	Saltash, in my constituency, which is also where I live, is an ancient borough that was a thriving community before Plymouth was even a collection of a few villages. It always depended on transport links, principally across the Tamar from Cornwall into England. Transport issues have therefore been important over the years. Saltash has become, almost, the mecca of civil engineering projects. We have the famous Brunel Royal Albert bridge, which introduced the railways into Cornwall. In more recent times, the Tamar road bridge was constructed, which was one of the first box girder bridges, and it has recently had additional lanes clipped on to the sides—an ingenious civil engineering project. We also have the Saltash tunnel, which is the subject of the debate tonight.
	The Saltash tunnel is a three-lane tunnel—the only three-lane tunnel in Europe, I believe—because we have a three-lane bridge. When the proposal for a tunnel was first mooted, it did not receive universal acclaim, partly because of all the disruption, and partly because people did not want more transport coming through the ancient borough of Saltash. However, it was considered preferable to another bridge, so after a public inquiry it was decided that we would have a tunnel. There were public meetings at the time, and I recall one meeting at the guildhall at Saltash when the proposed contractors and designers of the tunnel came to tell us what would happen.
	I distinctly recall someone in the audience at that meeting getting up and advising the contractors that she had lived in Fore street, Saltash, close to the proposed tunnel site, and that at the bottom of her garden was a well, which never ran dry. Even in the severest droughts, water was always available. That was not surprising. We had houses with names like Well Park house, and we had springs. It was clear that there was a considerable amount of water. She warned the contractors that if they proposed to build a tunnel there, they would have to be very careful about the water. The lady was well into her 70s or 80s and had huge experience, but regrettably the contractors took little notice. It is a pity that they did not.
	The subsequent construction was a monumental problem. During construction, I had the opportunity of visiting and walking through the site. It was hot, dark, wet and noisy—one of the worst environments in which to work—but the principal problem was the water. Water flowed through the tunnel at an alarming rate while the rock and shale were being drilled. It was clear that water would be a considerable problem. After some two and a half years the tunnel was constructed and traffic flowed through it, as well as the water, although that was behind a lining which, at that time, was very attractive. There was good lighting and fans to get rid of the exhaust fumes, and everything seemed satisfactory.
	Before the tunnel was officially opened by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, cracks began to appear in the lining only months after completion. Although the cracks were not problematic to begin with, water soon began to seep through them—not clean water, of course, but extremely dirty water, so the appearance of the tunnel gradually deteriorated. At that time, many of my constituents began to fear that the lining was going to collapse and that they were risking life and limb by going through the tunnel. Over a number of years, that has been shown comprehensively to be false; the structural integrity of the tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile long, is not in question.
	I believe that the tunnel is structurally sound, but it looks very bad cosmetically. Despite continual washing down in the night in an effort to make it look better, it has, regrettably, not been a particularly good example of tunnel building. Neither is it a very good gateway into Cornwall, bearing in mind the fact that it is situated only a few hundred metres from the boundary. An awful lot people coming into Cornwall get a very nice first impression when they cross the Tamar bridge and look at the beautiful river, but many plunge into what must be one of the worst tunnels in the country, whose interior now resembles crazy paving.
	As I said, the problem was first seen many years ago. When I served on the town and district councils, much correspondence took place between local councils, individual councillors, the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency to try to get to the bottom of the problems. Partly, they wanted the work to be redone in order to make the tunnel look right and to allay any more fears about its structural integrity. Principally, however, they wanted to deal with the fact that the tunnel was professionally designed and constructed, but began to demonstrate severe defects within a matter of months. That process went on for some years. I was involved in trying to get to the bottom of the matter, but nothing very much happened. We were fobbed off, no answers were forthcoming and the tunnel became progressively worse.
	We are all grateful that a scheme has recently been proposed for relining the tunnel. It will have an attractive new inside skin to obscure the dismal-looking existing lining and we will have a nice and attractive entrance to Cornwall. Everyone is very pleased that that is happening, but many people are beginning to ask why it was not done many years ago. The issue has also raised in people's minds a number of other questions that I should like to put to the Minister. He may not be able to answer all of them, but if he cannot do so, perhaps he can write to me.
	My first question is in the minds of many people who were living in Saltash and close by at the time of the tunnel's construction. Following the public inquiry, which involved much discussion and local knowledge about the wells, springs and other water, why did not the Highways Agency, design engineers and contractors take at least some time to think about the issue, instead of going blindly on? Was their knowledge so advanced that they could dismiss any local experience and knowledge?
	Secondly, when construction had commenced and water was seen pouring through the tunnel—we are talking not about modest dampness, but about significant streams of water—why did not somebody have a rethink and say, "This is an extraordinary amount of water; have we really taken proper precautions to make certain that it will be properly channelled away when construction has finished?"
	Thirdly, when the tunnel was completed, but before it was officially opened, certain cracks appeared, as well as water pouring out. The problem was not as bad as it is now, but it was very noticeable. That happened very early on. Why were no reports requested about those defects? Why were no such reports commissioned and some sort of penalty clause invoked with the contractors? Surely, there must have been some sort of arrangement to ensure that if the tunnel, which cost quite a few million pounds, was defective in any way, it would be put right by those who designed or built it. Why, given that local councillors had raised those issues time and again over the years, was nothing done? Why did the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency merely dismiss everything and keep on saying that the tunnel was perfectly satisfactory in terms of its structural integrity, which no one doubted, and do nothing about the appalling cosmetic look of it?
	Why is the report that was commissioned prior to the work being undertaken being kept so secret? I have asked to look at it, as the Minister knows. I understand that some of its contents may not be very helpful to the author and may provoke other action. However, we would be grateful for anything that can help us to understand why we are now in a position, 11 or 12 years later, of being forced to spend a considerable amount more taxpayers' money to rectify something that was apparent very early on when the tunnel was completed. Many of my constituents who have been close to this situation for some time find the whole affair very unsatisfactory.
	Over the past 15 years, yes, we have got our tunnel, and yes, we have got an awful lot of traffic through it, but we have seen it progressively deteriorate before our eyes. We have felt ashamed of its condition when we welcomed people into Cornwall. Those people think of Saltash as the place with the dirty and cracked tunnel—not exactly the most endearing sight for people coming to spend their money in Cornwall. Many people in my town believe that although the work that is now being undertaken is extremely welcome—I emphasise that—it should nevertheless have been done some time ago and should not be at the expense of existing taxpayers, but charged to the original designers or the original contractors.
	I accept that the tunnel is one of the civil engineering wonders of the world in that it is a three-lane tunnel. Most tunnels are either single-lane or double-lane. Its method of construction may at the time have been leading-edge technology, but we have leading-edge technology in the Royal Albert bridge, which is still standing. Although it is more than 100 years old, it still takes thunderous great trains across it. It is looking perfectly okay and will hopefully go on for a long time to come. The Tamar bridge has its so-called Nippon clip-ons—additional lanes that were constructed in a very difficult environment. They look right and seem to operate well. A tunnel would not seem to be in the same sort of league, yet for more than a decade we have suffered from its inferior construction, and we are now being asked to pay for something that should already have been done by and charged to the contractors.

David Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate and on the forceful way in which he made his points on behalf of his constituents. I shall gloss over some of his earlier comments about Saltash being the gateway to England. Of course, it is a fine old settlement, as we know, but—if I may tease him gently—his constituents move over the river into Devonport, my constituency, to find employment, as well as to do their shopping. He is right that Saltash is a fine town, and I am sure that he is very proud to represent it.
	I shall start with some historical information to explain what lies behind the works that are being undertaken in the tunnel. Such was the Government's concern following the European tunnel disasters that the Prime Minister required that all United Kingdom tunnels should be assessed to ensure that fire, or a similar serious accident, would not lead to such loss of life and disruption. There were clearly lessons to be learned from the disasters. They included the need for modern and robust environmental control, television monitoring and smoke and firefighting methods. A review of fan and water control also took place.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, Saltash tunnel is a single-bore, three-lane tunnel situated on the A38 trunk road below Saltash in Cornwall. It is approximately 410 m long and includes a 346 m bored tunnel section with an unreinforced concrete permanent lining. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating the A38 trunk road and the tunnel, maintaining them in good condition and carrying out any improvements.
	Mott, Hay and Anderson—now Mott MacDonald—designed the tunnel and Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. built it. It was opened to traffic in 1987. Its length exceeded 400 m, and Saltash was clearly a tunnel to be taken seriously. It is the only single-bore tunnel on the trunk road network and it also operates a tidal flow traffic management system. That permits two lanes for the morning Plymouth-bound traffic—all the people who leave Cornwall and come into Devon—and one lane against that flow for the out-bound traffic. That is switched after the morning peak flow for the rest of the day and during the night.
	The tidal flow system operates in tandem with the newly widened Tamar bridge, which Cornwall county council and Plymouth city council own and manage jointly. The electronics and signs create additional maintenance problems in the confines of the single bore. Modern, state-of-the-art monitoring equipment is included in the current works to replace the 15-year-old, out-of-date systems that have become unreliable and expensive to maintain.
	The Highways Agency is aware of the cracks in the tunnel walls. As the hon. Gentleman said, seepage of water through the concrete lining has caused unsightly staining, emphasised the cracking and led to public concern about the structural adequacy of the tunnel.

Paul Tyler: As the Minister knows, I use the tunnel regularly. Sometimes I have the misfortune to have to leave Cornwall and cross the border into his constituency in England. I hope that he will assure us that, although the tunnel will look much better cosmetically, there will be no further deterioration in the tunnel's structural integrity, which we will not be able to see because of the new lining. That is critical.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my comments. The tunnel was constructed to last more than 100 years and the structure is intact and in good condition.
	When the tunnel was designed, knowledge and technology was not as good as it is today. There was little experience of building such a tunnel. At the time, it was leading edge technology. It was built to the specifications of the Department of Transport, and although it was known that it would crack, neither the designers nor the Department anticipated the number of cracks that appeared and the amount of water that poured through. However, that is history.
	The hon. Gentleman made specific points about the designers not taking note of local experience. I cannot comment on that because it happened more than 20 years ago. If voices had been heard, perhaps the tunnel would have been designed differently. However, if it had been designed to be totally watertight, the cost could have been so enormous that it prohibited construction. It was built to a budget and to serve a purpose.
	No one doubts that the tunnel provides a useful bypass of the old Saltash town centre. When holiday traffic drove through in July, August and September, it clogged up that side of Plymouth and, of course, Saltash. The tunnel has been a valuable asset to the road network.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the technology at the time. It was perceived to be adequate, but the tunnel has subsequently leaked. However, the problem is cosmetic, not structural, and we now have to solve it. The tunnel is not falling apart.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether penalties should be imposed because of the cracks. The difficulty with that is that the tunnel was designed to specifications set out by the then Department of Transport, and it would be very difficult to show at law who was responsible. That is probably why it was decided not to take any further action at that time. He also mentioned a secret report. He has seen two very comprehensive reports on the tunnel, and I have to say to him that if I wanted to know anything about the state of the tunnel, I would refer to those reports. There is another report—which is largely an opinion—but I do not think that it would be helpful in the present situation. If it came into the public domain, it would certainly not help his constituents. I have seen it, and it would not take us any further forward in solving the problem that we now face.
	Some 340 m of the total 410 m of permanent tunnel lining is made from unreinforced concrete, and shrinkage cracks began to appear shortly after completion. Attempts to seal the cracks at that time were unsuccessful, and further cracks developed. Before proceeding with a refurbishment contract, the Highways Agency sought a second opinion on the tunnel's structural integrity. That resulted in the report from the Dr. G. Sauer Company, an international firm of tunnelling consultants, which was commissioned by the Highways Agency in June 1998 to assess the structural adequacy of the tunnel in its cracked state. A two-volume assessment report was submitted in March 2000—this is the report that the hon. Gentleman has seen, and I have to assure him that it will tell him everything that he needs to know—which concluded that the concrete lining should be structurally adequate for the design life of the tunnel. As I said, it was designed to have a life of nearly 100 years, and there is no question but that its integrity is good.
	The report also confirmed that the leakage was a cosmetic problem, and identified appropriate refurbishments—some of which were necessary purely because of the age of the tunnel, and the normal wear and tear—and modernisation. In the assessment report is a statement, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in previous correspondence, indicating that a separate report existed. That is the one that he calls the "secret" report. I can assure him that that confidential report will not take us any further forward.
	In accordance with the Prime Minister's directive following the European tunnel disasters, and having accepted that the reports from the Dr. G. Sauer Company confirmed the structural integrity of the tunnel, the Highways Agency's work has concentrated on modernisation. It is important that we now look at the way forward. We could look back, and we could perhaps apportion blame, but I am not sure that that would be terribly helpful in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman needs to know whether the tunnel is going to be fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and whether it will get holidaymakers and people travelling to work to and from their destinations. He also needs to know whether, as the gateway to Cornwall, it is going to look good. That is important in terms of people's perception of Cornwall—and of Devon, for that matter.
	With a view to reducing the energy costs of lighting and the costs of cleaning, a specification for a high-standard lining has been produced. That will have the added advantage of covering up the unsightly staining while permitting easy access for the general and principal inspections that the agency carries out on all its structures from time to time. The maintenance service building at the western portal has been extended to cater for current health and safety requirements. The new lighting and ventilation fans will be positioned with a view to easier and cheaper maintenance. Drainage, both behind the tunnel walls and in the carriageway, will be upgraded.
	Given the increased traffic volumes since construction, the current speed limit of 30 mph, introduced for the refurbishment contract, will be maintained to regularise traffic speed for the whole tidal flow section across the Tamar bridge and the Saltash tunnel. The potential for a speed-related accident in the confines of a tidal flow single-bore tunnel is very great. Speed camera coverage over the length of the tunnel requires special cameras at precise locations. We have new speed cameras using what is called the "specs" system—they look like a pair of spectacles—which will be installed as an additional safety measure. To enable the smooth passage of trunk road traffic along the county roads during the night-time closures of the tunnel that will enable the refurbishment to be carried out, diversion arrangements were put in place in advance of the main contract. They involved capacity improvements at some junctions, traffic light installation, traffic monitoring equipment and electronic signing. They cost about £1.8 million, an investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency that I am sure he does not oppose.
	Those diversion routes will be used whenever future cleaning and other maintenance works are required in the tunnel, as has been the case since its construction. The improvements should also help to cater for the increased traffic that has been a feature since 1987, and for all the people who are going to view the Eden project and the other fine things that Cornwall has to offer nowadays besides a bucket-and-spade holiday. We all welcome the increased traffic that we have already seen and will see again in the summer.
	Current maintenance costs run to about £500,000 a year. The new main contractor will carry them until the refurbishment is complete. The total cost of the refurbishment is expected to be about £8 million. Skanska was awarded a contract to refurbish the tunnel following an Official Journal advertisement and competitive tender. Both Skanska and the engineering consultants Symonds, designers for the refurbishment, won the contracts following a quality and price tender assessment. Sadly, since the awarding of the contract the specialist lining contractor has gone out of business, and delays were incurred during the search for a suitable alternative specialist. Tubosider of Italy, the specialist firm used for the Mont Blanc tunnel cladding, has now been retained by Skanska.
	The implications of the delay, and the need for a smooth traffic flow through the tunnel during the holiday season, have been discussed with Skanska, Symonds and the Highways Agency. As a result of the delay, the works will not be finished until September.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, with which I am familiar. It is important to his constituency, to Cornwall more generally, and to Devon. Now, however, we must look forward. We have made a substantial investment in the Saltash tunnel, as we have all along the route. He must welcome the new bypass at Dobwalls that we have announced. Indeed, his constituency is gaining many new features thanks to the Government's work in running a successful economy and investing in the infrastructure that we need so much.
	I hope that once the works are finished and we have surmounted the problems associated with the original design, we shall have a tunnel fit for the 21st century.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.